§

Portland Pedal Power, LLC

No. 85396037 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)
Portland Pedal Power, LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 1,987 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 785 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.

    28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

  4. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA

  5. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 98 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  6. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  7. Application of Swift Co.

    223 F.2d 950 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6141. July 1, 1955. Roy G. Story, Chicago, Ill., Earl G. Spiker, Washington, D.C., and Edward C. Vandenburgh, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting C.J., and JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON, retired, Judges. COLE, Judge. The Examiner-in-Chief of the United States Patent Office, acting for the Commissioner of Patents, has held that appellant's alleged

  8. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,843 times   125 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark