§

Phoenix Trading Inc. dba Amercare Products, Inc. v. Loops, LLC

No. 92051757 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)
Phoenix Trading Inc. dba Amercare Products, Inc. v. Loops, LLC

14 Cited authorities

  1. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,295 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  2. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 604 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

  3. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 576 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  4. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 110 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  5. Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.

    278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 60 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

  6. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  7. Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum

    586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

  8. In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.

    675 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1111. 2012-04-12 In re BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellee. With her on the brief was Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor. Of counsel was Amy Nelson. CLEVENGER 4,741,446, 4,991,104, 6,602,206. Cited. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant

  9. Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    753 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the "overall design" of the product was functional, but proceeding to examine whether the two arguably non-functional features had acquired secondary meaning

  10. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 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"

  12. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 781 times   276 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  13. Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.52   Cited 29 times
    Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

  14. 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