§

Mitchell Miller, a Professional Corp. dba Miller Law Group, P.C. v. Michele Ballard Miller

No. 91184841 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2013)
Mitchell Miller, a Professional Corp. dba Miller Law Group, P.C. v. Michele Ballard Miller

19 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  3. In re Hutchinson Technology Inc.

    852 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is "what the purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark as a whole"

  4. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  5. Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

    640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 20 times
    Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context

  6. Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc.

    742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 U.S.P.Q. 939 (Fed. Cir. 1984), we affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register a mark for a shoe tab. Noting the significant prior use of such tabs by other companies, we held that "Levi's use of a tab on shoes has been neither first nor exclusive," thus, it failed to show that its mark was distinctive.

  7. In re Etablissements Darty Et Fils

    759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."

  8. Golomb v. Wadsworth

    592 F.2d 1184 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 78-582. March 8, 1979. Rehearing Denied April 19, 1979. Robert D. Hornbaker, Lindenberg, Freilich, Hornbaker, Wasserman, Rosen Fernandez, Los Angeles, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellant. George H. Mortimer, New York City, attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  9. Application of Harris-Intertype Corporation

    518 F.2d 629 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times
    In Harris, the court analyzed the Lanham Act's mandate that no trademark will be given to a name that is " primarily merely a surname."

  10. In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp.

    508 F.2d 831 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-546. January 16, 1975. Edward Halle, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to register the mark DUCHARME as a trademark for

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,528 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  14. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 888 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  15. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  16. Section 2.20 - Declarations in lieu of oaths

    37 C.F.R. § 2.20   Cited 7 times   7 Legal Analyses

    Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746 , or the following declaration language, may be used: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 , and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and