§

MMDT Stretch, LLC

No. 85930329 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)
MMDT Stretch, LLC

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  2. In re Newbridge Cutlery Co.

    776 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1535. 01-15-2015 In re THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY (trading as Newbridge Silverware). Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Christina J. Hieber and Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors. LINN, Circuit Judge. Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United

  3. In re Miracle Tuesday, Llc.

    695 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Describing analogous factors for primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks

  4. In re Compagnie Generale Maritime

    993 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    No. 91-1102. April 29, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Declined June 7, 1993. Marc E. Brown, Poms, Smith, Lande Rose, Professional Corp., Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Brian W. Kasell. Albin F. Drost, Deputy Sol., Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

  5. In re Les Halles De Paris J.V.

    334 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1539. July 11, 2003. Myron Cohen, Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman Pavane, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Lance J. Lieberman and Jeremy Kaufman. Stephen Walsh, Associate Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel were Cynthia C. Lynch and William G. Jenks, Associate Solicitors. Before NEWMAN, RADER

  6. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  7. In re Jacques Bernier, Inc.

    894 F.2d 389 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 89-1457. January 24, 1990. Marshall A. Burmeister, Burmeister, York, Palmatier, Hamby Jones, Chicago, Ill., argued for appellant. Linda M. Skoro, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAYER, Circuit Judge. Judge Friedman took senior status on November 1, 1989. FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the decision

  8. Canal Company v. Clark

    80 U.S. 311 (1871)   Cited 126 times
    In Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 324, the word "Lackawanna" was rejected as a trade-mark for coal because it designated the district in which the coal was produced.

  9. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"