§

Penton Media, Inc.

No. 75697691 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2001)
Penton Media, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Technical Pub. Co. v. Lebhar-Friedman, Inc.

    729 F.2d 1136 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 104 times
    Holding "Software News" to be generic for a publication about the software industry

  2. CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc.

    531 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that "Consumer Electronics," as the name of a magazine in that industry, is generic

  3. 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).

  4. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 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.

  5. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc. v. Penton/IPC, Inc.

    509 F. Supp. 430 (E.D. Pa. 1981)   Cited 15 times
    In Walker-Davis Publications, Inc. v. Penton/IPC, Inc., 509 F. Supp. 430, 211 USPQ 265 (E.D.Pa. 1981), the court held that the term "Energy Management" is a name which refers to a particular industry and thus names a class of trade magazines, as well as a trade or field of interest, by giving itself the name of the trade or field which is the exclusive subject of its advertisements and articles. It is therefore, said the court, a generic name not capable of valid registration. 509 F. Supp. at 438, 211 USPQ at 272.

  6. Application of National Recreation Ass'n

    181 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1950)

    Patent Appeal No. 5691. Argued March 8, 1950. Decided April 3, 1950. Truman S. Safford, New York City (Curtis, Morris Safford, New York City, Richard K. Stevens, and Davidson C. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (Walter J. Derenberg, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL and JOHNSON, Judges. JACKSON, Judge. The Commissioner of Patents affirmed a decision of the Examiner of

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,609 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"