§

Productos Alimenticios Bocadeli, S.A. de C.V.

No. 87057223 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)
Productos Alimenticios Bocadeli, S.A. de C.V.

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  2. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

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

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 24 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"

  4. 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

  5. In re N.C. Lottery

    866 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2016-2558 08-10-2017 IN RE: NORTH CAROLINA LOTTERY, Appellant David E. Bennett, Coats & Bennett, PLLC, Cary, NC, argued for appellant. Also represented by David D. Kalish. William Lamarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas L. Casagrande, Christina Hieber. Prost, Chief Judge. David E. Bennett , Coats & Bennett, PLLC, Cary, NC, argued for appellant. Also represented by David

  6. Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc.

    759 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    No. 2013–1448. 2014-07-16 STONCOR GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. SPECIALTY COATINGS, INC., Appellee. Charles N. Quinn, Fox Rothschild LLP, of Exton, PA, argued for appellant. Matthew Seifert, Hoxie & Associates, LLC, of Millburn, NJ, argued for appellee. On the brief was Thomas Hoxie. HUGHES Charles N. Quinn, Fox Rothschild LLP, of Exton, PA, argued for appellant. Matthew Seifert, Hoxie & Associates, LLC, of Millburn, NJ, argued for appellee. On the brief was Thomas Hoxie. Before TARANTO and HUGHES,

  7. In re Trivita, Inc.

    783 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1383. 04-17-2015 In re TRIVITA, INC., Appellant. Adam Stephenson, Adam R. Stephenson, LTD., Tempe, AZ, for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee. Also represented by Thomas L. Casagrande, Christina Hieber, Thomas W. Krause. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Adam Stephenson, Adam R. Stephenson, LTD., Tempe, AZ, for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria

  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 Stereotaxis, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique

  10. 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).

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 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"

  13. Section 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 185 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"