§

Nintex UK Ltd.

No. 86665633 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2018)
Nintex UK Ltd.

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  2. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

  3. In re Trivita, Inc.

    783 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1383. 04-17-2015 In re TRIVITA, INC., Appellant. Adam Stephenson, Adam R. Stephenson, LTD., Tempe, AZ, for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee. Also represented by Thomas L. Casagrande, Christina Hieber, Thomas W. Krause. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Adam Stephenson, Adam R. Stephenson, LTD., Tempe, AZ, for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria

  4. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

    675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor

  5. 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).

  6. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 times   274 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"

  8. Section 1060 - Assignment

    15 U.S.C. § 1060   Cited 190 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Requiring assignments of federal trademark registrations to be "by instruments in writing"

  9. Section 2.48 - Office does not issue duplicate registrations

    37 C.F.R. § 2.48   Cited 1 times

    If two applications on the same register would result in registrations that are exact duplicates, the Office will permit only one application to mature into registration, and will refuse registration in the other application. 37 C.F.R. §2.48 73 FR 67769 , Nov. 17, 2008 Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations. Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations. Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping