§

PolarityTE, Inc.

No. 87260683 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)
PolarityTE, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Permanent v. Lasting

    543 U.S. 111 (2004)   Cited 326 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding defense available even where likelihood of confusion established

  2. Beckwith v. Commr. of Patents

    252 U.S. 538 (1920)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”

  3. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  4. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  5. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  6. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

  7. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP

    373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

  8. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

    675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor

  9. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  10. Application of Colonial Stores Incorporated

    394 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that “SUGAR & SPICE” for baked goods was “more than a mere description of the ingredients of the goods” because it evokes associations with the rhyme “everything nice”

  11. Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 4,392 times   30 Legal Analyses
    In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,800 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. 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"

  14. Section 2.126 - Form of submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

    37 C.F.R. § 2.126   Cited 1 times

    (a) Submissions must be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board via ESTTA. (1) Text in an electronic submission must be filed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. (2) Exhibits pertaining to an electronic submission must be made electronically as an attachment to the submission and must be clear and legible. (b) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, submissions may be filed in paper form. All submissions in paper