§

REM Associates, L.P.

86881376 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)
REM Associates, L.P.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.

    864 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    2016-1939 07-27-2017 Teresa H. EARNHARDT, Appellant v. KERRY EARNHARDT, INC., Appellee Uly Samuel Gunn, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones, Charlotte, NC. David Blaine Sanders, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Charlotte, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Cary Baxter Davis, Matthew Felton Tilley. Chen, Circuit Judge. Uly Samuel Gunn , Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones

  2. In re Etablissements Darty Et Fils

    759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."

  3. Lucien Piccard Watch Corp. v. 1868 Crescent Corp.

    314 F. Supp. 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)   Cited 7 times

    314 F.Supp. 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) 165 U.S.P.Q. 459 LUCIEN PICCARD WATCH CORP., Plaintiff, v. Since 1868 CRESCENT CORPORATION d/b/a Crescent Corporation, Defendant. No. 69 Civ. 3702. United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 30, 1970 Blum, Moscovitz, Friedman & Kaplan, New York City, for plaintiff; Harold I. Kaplan, Martin J. Beran, Ira Allen Paur, New York City, of counsel. Alan W. Borst, New York City, for defendant. MANSFIELD, District Judge. In this trademark infringement case brought against

  4. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,778 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,575 times   259 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"

  6. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,019 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  7. Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate