Revolver Media, 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
Beckwith v. Commr. of Patents
252 U.S. 538 (1920) Cited 177 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
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 Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”
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
Nautilus Group v. Icon Health and Fitness
372 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 29 times
Holding that the district court's finding of "actual confusion" was improper where "the relatively small number of calls presented by Nautilus renders this evidence too unreliable"
In re Steelbuilding.com
415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 26 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning
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
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"

Revolver Media, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

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

Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

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 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

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

Holding that the district court's finding of "actual confusion" was improper where "the relatively small number of calls presented by Nautilus renders this evidence too unreliable"

Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

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"