§

Micro Motion, Inc. v. Danfoss A/S

No. 91093658 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 1998)
Micro Motion, Inc. v. Danfoss A/S

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  2. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  3. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  4. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.

    940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

  5. Colony Foods, Inc. v. Sagemark, Ltd.

    735 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting a party's argument that the use of the word "HOBO" in several of its marks created a "family", and stating that the party failed to establish, for example, by a survey, that the term HOBO is used in the public in connection with restaurant services to identify the party exclusively.

  6. J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx and Company

    280 F.2d 437 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 6503. June 29, 1960. Abraham A. Saffitz, Washington, D.C. (Emanuel R. Posnack, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. James Franklin, New York City (Maxwell James, New York City, of counsel), for appellees. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge C. WILLIAM KRAFT, Jr. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 292(d)

  7. Application of Helena Rubinstein, Inc.

    410 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8144, 8145. May 15, 1969. Laforest S. Saulsbury, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, McGUIRE, Judge, sitting by designation, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. We are confronted here with two separate appeals from a single decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to

  8. Application of Sun Oil Company

    426 F.2d 401 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8320. May 28, 1970. Donald R. Johnson, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, D. Lenore Lady, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. Sun Oil Company brings this appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 155 USPQ 600 (1967), affirming

  9. Servo Corp. of Am. v. Servo-Tek Products

    289 F.2d 955 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6651. May 5, 1961. Roy C. Hopgood and John M. Calimafde, New York City, for appellant. Fisher Christen, Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 U.S.C. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal

  10. Application of Preformed Line Products Co.

    323 F.2d 1007 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 6 times
    In Preformed, we held the single word "preformed" sought to be registered to be merely descriptive of certain of appellant's goods which had been "helically shaped in advance" and that the primary function of the word was to describe a characteristic of the product.

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,390 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint