§

Ruth Ann Lingwall and Clinton D. Lingwall

87681004 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2019)
Ruth Ann Lingwall and Clinton D. Lingwall

12 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 Hutchinson Technology Inc.

    852 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is "what the purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark as a whole"

  3. 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."

  4. McDERMOTT v. OMID INTERN

    883 F.2d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 4 times

    Nos. 88-1592, 88-1593. July 6, 1989. D.Ct./S.D.Ohio. AFFIRMED

  5. Application of Harris-Intertype Corporation

    518 F.2d 629 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times
    In Harris, the court analyzed the Lanham Act's mandate that no trademark will be given to a name that is " primarily merely a surname."

  6. Goodyear Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.

    128 U.S. 598 (1888)   Cited 68 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the addition of "Company" to an otherwise generic mark does not render the mark distinctive

  7. In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp.

    508 F.2d 831 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-546. January 16, 1975. Edward Halle, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to register the mark DUCHARME as a trademark for

  8. Application of I. Lewis Cigar Mfg. Co.

    205 F.2d 204 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5943. June 24, 1953. Hauff Warland and James M. Mason, New York City, for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (H.S. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY, and COLE, Judges. WORLEY, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the rejection by the examiner of the application for registration filed December 5, 1947, under the provisions of section

  9. 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

  10. 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"

  11. 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

  12. Section 2.76 - Amendment to allege use

    37 C.F.R. § 2.76   Cited 3 times
    Requiring three specimens to support the declared date of the first use of the mark in commerce