§

QUAL-COMM Inc.

No. 75183251 (T.T.A.B. May. 1, 2000)
QUAL-COMM Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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).

  2. Aluminum Fab. Co. v. Season-All W

    259 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 58 times
    According deference, for purposes of determining validity of trademark, to USPTO's decision whether mark was descriptive or arbitrary and fanciful

  3. 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

  4. De Walt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.

    289 F.2d 656 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 25 times
    In DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656, 48 CCPA 909, at CCPA p. 918, we pointed out that "damage" will be presumed or inferred when the mark sought to be registered is descriptive of the goods of the opposer and the opposer is one who has an interest in using the descriptive term in its business, collecting a number of cases supporting the point.

  5. Application of Reynolds Metals Company

    480 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9066. June 28, 1973. Browne, Beveridge, DeGrandi Kline, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Francis C. Browne, Richard G. Kline, John M. Rommel, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Acting Sol., Washington D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This

  6. Minn. Mining Mfg. v. Johnson Johnson

    454 F.2d 1179 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8567. February 10, 1972. Rehearing Denied June 1, 1972. Charles H. Lauder, St. Paul, Minn., attorney of record, for appellant. Norman St. Landau, New Brunswick, N. J., attorney of record, for appellee; Henry W. Leeds, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 160 USPQ 827

  7. Sperry Rand Corporation v. Sunbeam Corp.

    442 F.2d 979 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8530. June 3, 1971. Bert A. Collison, William K. Guild, Nims, Halliday, Whitman, Howes, Collison Isner, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. Walter J. Halliday, New York City, of counsel. Beverly W. Pattishall, George R. Clark, Robert M. Newbury, Pattishall, McAuliffe Hofstetter, Chicago, Ill., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,617 times   276 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"