Monster Cable Products, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,261 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
532 U.S. 23 (2001) Cited 585 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 566 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.
671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 108 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection
Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.
278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 57 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"
In re Pacer Technology
338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 46 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA
In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.
675 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 2011–1111. 2012-04-12 In re BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellee. With her on the brief was Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor. Of counsel was Amy Nelson. CLEVENGER 4,741,446, 4,991,104, 6,602,206. Cited. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant
Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
753 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 42 times
Holding that the "overall design" of the product was functional, but proceeding to examine whether the two arguably non-functional features had acquired secondary meaning
Bellsouth Corp. v. Datanational Corp.
60 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 25 times
Affirming finding, on summary judgment, that a "Walking Fingers" logo had "become generic"
Sunrise Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Fred S.A
175 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 19 times
Finding that Duraco and Knitwaves are consistent with the principle that a trade dress which does not indicate source is generic and unprotectable
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
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"
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
Section 1091 - Supplemental register
15 U.S.C. § 1091 Cited 77 times
Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"

Monster Cable Products, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

Holding that the "overall design" of the product was functional, but proceeding to examine whether the two arguably non-functional features had acquired secondary meaning

Affirming finding, on summary judgment, that a "Walking Fingers" logo had "become generic"

Finding that Duraco and Knitwaves are consistent with the principle that a trade dress which does not indicate source is generic and unprotectable

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"