§

Olin Corporation

No. 86651083 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)
Olin Corporation

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

    240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

  2. In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

    774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 61 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "pink" color of insulation was non-functional because it did not affect the quality of insulation in that the color used had no effect on the product's ability to regulate a building's temperature

  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 La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.

    797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark

  5. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  6. Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

    227 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating and remanding because the court could not "discern from the Board's brief discussion" whether the Board applied the wrong test

  7. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.

    864 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    2016-1939 07-27-2017 Teresa H. EARNHARDT, Appellant v. KERRY EARNHARDT, INC., Appellee Uly Samuel Gunn, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones, Charlotte, NC. David Blaine Sanders, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Charlotte, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Cary Baxter Davis, Matthew Felton Tilley. Chen, Circuit Judge. Uly Samuel Gunn , Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones

  8. In re Etablissements Darty Et Fils

    759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."

  9. McDERMOTT v. OMID INTERN

    883 F.2d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 4 times

    Nos. 88-1592, 88-1593. July 6, 1989. D.Ct./S.D.Ohio. AFFIRMED

  10. Application of Harris-Intertype Corporation

    518 F.2d 629 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times
    In Harris, the court analyzed the Lanham Act's mandate that no trademark will be given to a name that is " primarily merely a surname."

  11. 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

  12. 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"

  13. Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate

  14. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty