§

Ocean Technology, Inc.

87405201 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2019)
Ocean Technology, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

    786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 30 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

  2. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 25 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  3. In re Steelbuilding.com

    415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

  4. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  5. In re Boston Beer Co. Ltd. Partnership

    198 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim "The Best Beer in America" amounted to mere puffery

  6. In re Water Gremlin Co.

    635 F.2d 841 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 13 times
    Protecting container designed to provide access to lead sinkers

  7. Application of Helena Rubinstein, Inc.

    410 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8144, 8145. May 15, 1969. Laforest S. Saulsbury, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, McGUIRE, Judge, sitting by designation, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. We are confronted here with two separate appeals from a single decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to

  8. In re Bose Corp.

    546 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-581. December 16, 1976. Charles Hieken, Hieken Cohen, Waltham, Mass., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker

  9. Application of Standard Oil Company

    275 F.2d 945 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6493. March 8, 1960. Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio (Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code

  10. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  12. Section 1053 - Service marks registrable

    15 U.S.C. § 1053   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying same requirement to registration of service marks

  13. Section 2.61 - Action by examiner

    37 C.F.R. § 2.61   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Applications for registration, including amendments to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act, and statements of use under section 1(d) of the Act, will be examined and, if the applicant is found not entitled to registration for any reason, applicant will be notified and advised of the reasons therefor and of any formal requirements or objections. (b) The Office may require the applicant to furnish such information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and such additional specimens as may