§

Migeca S.p.A.

No. 87105947 (T.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)
Migeca S.p.A.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  2. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  3. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

  4. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

    240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

  5. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

    675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor

  6. In re Spirits Intern., N.V

    563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

  7. In re Stereotaxis, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique

  8. Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.

    616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-613. March 13, 1980. Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal

  9. In re Sarkli, Ltd.

    721 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 83-983. November 18, 1983. Arnold Sprung, New York City, argued, for appellant. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and John W. Newhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Serial No. 266643. Before FRIEDMAN, SMITH and NIES, Circuit Judges. NIES, Circuit Judge. The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

  10. Andrew J. McPartland v. Montgomery Ward

    164 F.2d 603 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5304. November 29, 1947. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents of United States Patent Office, T.M. Cancelation No. 4376. Trade-mark cancellation proceeding by Montgomery Ward Company against Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences sustaining the petition, the defendant appeals. Affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows, of New York City (Clarence M. Fisher, of Washington, D.C., and George

  11. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  12. Section 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 185 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

  13. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty