§

Pro Bono Institute

No. 78762830 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2008)
Pro Bono Institute

9 Cited authorities

  1. L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.

    192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

  2. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

    240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

  3. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  4. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  5. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  6. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  7. In re Reed

    482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board properly considered websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com" in their domain names to determine what the relevant public would understand LAWYERS.COM to mean

  8. Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc.

    742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 U.S.P.Q. 939 (Fed. Cir. 1984), we affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register a mark for a shoe tab. Noting the significant prior use of such tabs by other companies, we held that "Levi's use of a tab on shoes has been neither first nor exclusive," thus, it failed to show that its mark was distinctive.

  9. Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co.

    299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that $3,000,000 in sales in one year was insufficient to establish secondary meaning