Pruvit Ventures, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

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
In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 26 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.
892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 20 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness
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"
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
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
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
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
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
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).
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,882 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 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"

Pruvit Ventures, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness

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"

Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

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

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).

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"