§
Paj, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  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.

  2. 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.

  3. Hancock v. Am. Steel Wire Co. of N.J

    203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 30 times
    Holding infringer's use of "Tornado" on wire fencing carried identical meaning to protected user's "Cyclone"

  4. R. Neumann Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery

    326 F.2d 799 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7067. January 23, 1964. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Sidney A. Diamond, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Submitted on record by appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. R. Neumann Co. appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which dismissed appellant's opposition to application by Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., appellee, for registration of the term "VYNAHYDE" as a trademark

  5. R. Neumann Co. v. Overseas Shipments

    326 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 6 times
    In R. Neumann Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., 326 F.2d 786, 51 CCPA 946, 140 USPQ 276 (1964), a similar argument was made that the mark DURAHYDE on shoes was not deceptive as an indication of leather because of tags affixed to the shoes proclaiming the legend "Outwears leather.

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,580 times   260 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"

  7. Section 24.2 - Deception as to composition

    16 C.F.R. § 24.2   Cited 2 times

    It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, the composition of any industry product or part thereof. It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified term "leather" or other unqualified terms suggestive of leather to describe industry products unless the industry product so described is composed in all substantial parts of leather. This section includes, but is not limited to, the following: For purposes of these Guides, footwear is composed of three parts: the upper, the

  8. Section 23.11 - Misuse of "corrosion proof," "noncorrosive," "corrosion resistant," "rust proof," "rust resistant," etc

    16 C.F.R. § 23.11

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to: (1) Use the terms "corrosion proof," "noncorrosive," "rust proof," or any other term of similar meaning to describe an industry product unless all parts of the product will be immune from rust and other forms of corrosion during the life expectancy of the product; or (2) Use the terms "corrosion resistant," "rust resistant," or any other term of similar meaning to describe an industry product unless all parts of the product are of such composition as to not be subject