§
Odd Sox LLC

21 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 2,001 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 794 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 815 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  4. Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Group of America, Inc.

    269 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 296 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding mark commercially weak due to low commercial success, low advertising spending relative to competitors, and sale of the mark to a third party

  5. Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers Distr

    996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 269 times
    Holding that bad faith existed where the defendant selected a similar design to distribute

  6. Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.

    65 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that "Copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendant's intent in copying is to confuse consumers and pass off his product as the plaintiff's. In that situation, the defendant's belief that plaintiff's trade dress has acquired secondary meaning — so that his copying will indeed facilitate his passing off — is some evidence that the trade dress actually has acquired secondary meaning."

  7. Mana Products, Inc. v. Columbia Cosmetics Mfg., Inc.

    65 F.3d 1063 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that the color black did not identify the plaintiff as the source of the cosmetics because "countless numbers of cosmetics companies . . . sell black compacts."

  8. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.

    28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

  9. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 47 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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"

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 918 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  14. Section 2.20 - Declarations in lieu of oaths

    37 C.F.R. § 2.20   Cited 8 times   7 Legal Analyses

    Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746 , or the following declaration language, may be used: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 , and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and