Monsterops LLC

9 Cited authorities

In re Fox
702 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 7 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming refusal to register COCK SUCKER mark for lollipops
In re Spirits Intern., N.V
563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 8 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”
In re Stereotaxis, Inc.
429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 7 times
Affirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique
In re Slokevage
441 F.3d 957 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 5 times 2 Legal Analyses
Interpreting Wal-Mart and holding that, where the alleged trade dress is incorporated into the product itself, it amounts to product design
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.
In re Budge Mfg. Co., Inc.
857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Appeal No. 87-1541. September 21, 1988. Eugene E. Renz, Jr., Eugene E. Renz, Jr., P.C., Media, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John S. Munday. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Com'r of Patents and Trademarks, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge.
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 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter
15 U.S.C. § 1056 Cited 69 times 3 Legal Analyses
Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought

Monsterops LLC

9 Cited authorities

Affirming refusal to register COCK SUCKER mark for lollipops

Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

Affirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique

Interpreting Wal-Mart and holding that, where the alleged trade dress is incorporated into the product itself, it amounts to product design

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.

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"

Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought