§

Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc.

87285383 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2019)
Reelex Packaging Solutions, Inc.

28 Cited authorities

  1. Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group

    532 U.S. 424 (2001)   Cited 802 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that constitutionality of jury's punitive damage award is subject to de novo review

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 776 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,261 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  4. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 585 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

  5. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 566 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  6. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.

    489 U.S. 141 (1989)   Cited 567 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state law prohibiting people from copying unpatentable boat hull designs was preempted because it sought to provide patent-like protection to boat designs not protectable by patent laws and it "contravenes the ultimate goal of public disclosure and use that is the centerpiece of federal patent policy"

  7. L.A. GEAR, INC. v. THOM McAN SHOE CO

    988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 213 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's trade dress was not likely to be confused with that of plaintiff because of conspicuous placement on accused dress of defendant's identifying marks

  8. Duraco Products v. Joy Plastic Enterprises

    40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 43 of the Lanham Act protects trade dress

  9. First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

    809 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that a showing of likelihood of success is essential for a preliminary injunction

  10. Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.

    65 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that "Copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendant's intent in copying is to confuse consumers and pass off his product as the plaintiff's. In that situation, the defendant's belief that plaintiff's trade dress has acquired secondary meaning — so that his copying will indeed facilitate his passing off — is some evidence that the trade dress actually has acquired secondary meaning."

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,954 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"