Milo Shammas

9 Cited authorities

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
In re Chippendales USA, Inc.
622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 22 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"
In re Hotels.com
573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 22 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey
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"
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
In re Gould Paper Corp.
834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 20 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens
In re Bongrain Intern
894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 89-1536. January 23, 1990. Thomas E. Young, Body, Vickers Daniels, Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Robert V. Vickers. Albin F. Drost, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NEWMAN and MAYER Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULL Senior District Judge. The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior
Remington Products v. North Am. Philips Corp.
892 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 10 times
Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,580 times 260 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"

Milo Shammas

9 Cited authorities

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

Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey

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"

Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

Holding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens

Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined

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"