MN Apparel LLC

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sones

    590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use" and disapproving of the "rigid, bright-line rule" the PTO applied
  2. In re Siny Corp.

    920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

    2018-1077 01-14-2019 IN RE: SINY CORP., Appellant Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Christina J. Hieber, Mary Beth Walker. Prost, Chief Judge. Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause

  3. In re Chemical Dynamics, Inc.

    839 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that generalized sales and advertising figures do not establish secondary meaning where the alleged mark is not promoted by itself but instead as part of a larger mark or with other designs or marks
  4. In re Hacot-Colombier

    105 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    No. 96-1240. January 21, 1997. Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Andrew J. Gray, IV, Jacobson, Price, Holman Stern, P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC, argued, for appellant. With him on the brief was Simor L. Moskowitz. Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, VA, argued, for the Commissioner. With him on the brief were Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, and Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Kevin

  5. Lands' End, Inc. v. Manback

    797 F. Supp. 511 (E.D. Va. 1992)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Civ. A. No. 92-0715-A. July 31, 1992 Lawrence Jay Gotts, Kirkland Ellis, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Richard Cullen, U.S. Atty., E.D.Va., Richmond, Va., Richard Parker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION CLAUDE HILTON, Chief Judge This matter came before the court on July 16, 1992 on cross motions for summary judgment. Both parties agree that no material facts are in dispute and the court should decide this case on the summary judgment motions. The plaintiff, Lands'

  6. In re Osterberg

    109 B.R. 938 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1990)   Cited 5 times

    Bankruptcy No. 89-05155. Adv. No. 89-7042. January 19, 1990. John S. Steinberger, Kenmare, N.D., for defendant, debtor. Parrell D. Grossman, Minot, N.D., for plaintiff. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM A. HILL, Bankruptcy Judge. This adversary proceeding was commenced by Complaint filed June 7, 1989, by which the plaintiff, Julie Streich, seeks a determination that divorce decree provisions by which the defendant/Debtor, Scott Osterberg, would remain responsible for certain marital obligations are in

  7. Cunningham v. Hous. Auth., City of Opelousas

    764 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    No. 84-4481. July 5, 1985. Raymond L. Simmons, Baton Rouge, La., Aaron Harris, Opelousas, La., for plaintiff-appellant. Felix A. DeJean, III, Thomas J. DeJean, Opelousas, La., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Before REAVLEY, JOHNSON, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gladys Cunningham appeals from an adverse judgment in her Title VII sex discrimination case against the Housing Authority of the City of Opelousas

  8. Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products

    341 F.2d 127 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7281. February 11, 1965. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, New York City (Arnold Sprung, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Robert C. Williams, D.D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Powermatics appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarding priority to Globe, senior party, in a trademark interference between Globe's Registration No. 704,179 for "PANELUME"

  9. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
  10. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,016 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
  11. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional

  12. Section 2.51 - Drawing required

    37 C.F.R. § 2.51   Cited 13 times
    Allowing a typed drawing for marks consisting of words that are not depicted in special form