Milo Shammas

9 Cited authorities

In re Chippendales USA, Inc.
622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 23 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 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 Hotels.com
573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 23 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 45 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
Determining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"
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 1,600 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"

Milo Shammas

9 Cited authorities

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"

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

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

Determining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"

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"