§

Retail Royalty Company

No. 77979784 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2011)
Retail Royalty Company

12 Cited authorities

  1. Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 819 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  2. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 58 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  3. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  4. In re Reed

    482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board properly considered websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com" in their domain names to determine what the relevant public would understand LAWYERS.COM to mean

  5. Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings

    576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

  6. In re Omaha Nat. Corp.

    819 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1567. May 20, 1987. Dennis L. Thomte, Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees Sease, Omaha, Neb., argued for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARCHER, Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge. Omaha National Bank appeals

  7. Victor Tool and Mach. Corp. v. Sun Control Awnings

    299 F. Supp. 868 (E.D. Mich. 1968)   Cited 19 times

    Civ. No. 28353. January 9, 1968. Austin A. Webb, Kalamazoo, Mich., for plaintiff; Carey Carey, Detroit, Mich., of counsel. Hiram P. Settle, Jr., Southfield, Mich., for defendants. OPINION KAESS, District Judge. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Title 28, Section 1338 of the United States Code. The controversy in this litigation resides in the trademark "SUN CONTROL" as applied to metal awnings and canopies, as well as various other building components such as siding, storm windows and

  8. Quaker St. Oil Ref. Corp. v. Quaker Oil

    453 F.2d 1296 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 8 times
    Deciding the "right to registration" of the trademark "SUPER BLEND" based on the "factual situation" of concurrent use "as of the time when registration is sought"

  9. Application of Allen Electric Equip. Co.

    458 F.2d 1404 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8721. May 18, 1972. Albert L. Ely, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio (Ely, Golrick Flynn), Cleveland, Ohio, attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., A.D. Hooks, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and CLARK, Justice (Ret.), United States Supreme Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the Trademark Trial

  10. Helena Rubinstein, Inc. v. Ladd

    219 F. Supp. 259 (D.D.C. 1963)   Cited 1 times

    Civ. A. No. 3332-61. June 27, 1963. Amram, Hahn Sundlun, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., U.S. Patent Office, Washington, D.C., for defendant. JACKSON, District Judge. This is a civil action brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1071 and 35 U.S.C. § 145 in which plaintiff as the applicant in an action for trademark registration, Serial No. 25,892, filed March 11, 1957, sought to have the Court authorize the Commissioner of Patents to issue to it, on the basis of that application

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,612 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"

  12. Section 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter

    15 U.S.C. § 1056   Cited 69 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought