Ruby Mine, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
505 U.S. 763 (1992) Cited 1,964 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown
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
Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co.
259 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001) Cited 157 times
Holding that plaintiff's trade dress in its candle labels, which consisted of a combination of functional and common features, was not so unique and unusual as to warrant a finding of inherent distinctiveness
Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD
568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 98 times 11 Legal Analyses
Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks
In re Chippendales USA, Inc.
622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 22 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"
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
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"
Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings
37 C.F.R. § 2.52 Cited 29 times
Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

Ruby Mine, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

Holding that plaintiff's trade dress in its candle labels, which consisted of a combination of functional and common features, was not so unique and unusual as to warrant a finding of inherent distinctiveness

Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

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"

Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”