§

Prolong Pharmaceuticals, LLC

No. 86091302 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2015)
Prolong Pharmaceuticals, LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re National Presto Industries, Inc.

    347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 349 times
    Holding that "[w]hen plaintiff and defendant are in different states there is no choice of forum that will avoid imposing inconvenience; and when the inconvenience of the alternative venues is comparable there is no basis for a change of venue; the tie is awarded to the plaintiff"

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. In re Boston Beer Co. Ltd. Partnership

    198 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim "The Best Beer in America" amounted to mere puffery

  6. 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).

  7. 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

  8. In re W.A. Sheaffer Pen Co.

    158 F.2d 390 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5211. December 9, 1946. Appeal from Commissioner of Patents, Serial No. 439,297. Proceeding in the matter of the application of W.A. Sheaffer Pen Company for registration of a mark. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing to register such mark, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Thorley von Holst, of Chicago, Ill. (M. Hudson Rathburn, of Chicago, Ill., and Edwin R. Hutchinson, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington, D.C. (Pasquale