Neurobotics, L.L.C.

10 Cited authorities

Beckwith v. Commr. of Patents
252 U.S. 538 (1920) Cited 175 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”
In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP
373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 30 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness
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"
In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.
340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
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 Gyulay
820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 14 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
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 3,802 times 123 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 1,582 times 268 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"

Neurobotics, L.L.C.

10 Cited authorities

Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”

Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

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"

Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

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.

Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

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"