§

RK Netmedia, Inc.

No. 77060742 (T.T.A.B. May. 21, 2009)
RK Netmedia, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

    748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

  3. In re Boulevard Entertainment, Inc.

    334 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register JACK–OFF marks

  4. In re Mavety Media Group Ltd.

    33 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO failed to prove that term was scandalous and thus unregistrable; PTO relied on dictionary definition of disputed term, but dictionary provided alternative definitions; proof failed because of "the absence of evidence as to which of these definitions the substantial composite [of consumers] would choose"

  5. In re McGinley

    660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 14 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register mark depicting genitalia

  6. Application of Standard Elektrik

    371 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7709. February 9, 1967. C. Cornell Remsen, Jr., New York City (Donald J. Goodell, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. Appellant appeals from the decision of the Trademark

  7. In re Riverbank Canning Co.

    95 F.2d 327 (C.C.P.A. 1938)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register MADONNA mark for wine

  8. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,479 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,597 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"

  10. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty