§

SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Mike Ghorbani

No. 91210813 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2016)
SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Mike Ghorbani

15 Cited authorities

  1. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

  2. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  3. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

    284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 20 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding economic prejudice if a trademark registration were cancelled where a defendant had invested money in marketing and brand development

  4. In re Spirits Intern., N.V

    563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

  5. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

    994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times
    Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

  6. In re California Innovations, Inc.

    329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 9 times

    No. 02-1407. DECIDED: May 22, 2003. Michael A. Grow, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin Kahn, PLLC of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Charles M. Marmelstein and Evan S. Stolove. Henry G. Sawtelle, Associate, United States Patent and Trademark Office of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. California

  7. In re Wada

    194 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 11 times
    Affirming PTO ruling that "New York Ways Gallery" was primarily geographically descriptive because "NEW YORK is not an obscure geographical term and that it is known as a place where the goods at issue here are designed, manufactured, and sold. . . ."

  8. In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.

    769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco

  9. In re Compagnie Generale Maritime

    993 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    No. 91-1102. April 29, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Declined June 7, 1993. Marc E. Brown, Poms, Smith, Lande Rose, Professional Corp., Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Brian W. Kasell. Albin F. Drost, Deputy Sol., Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

  10. In re Les Halles De Paris J.V.

    334 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1539. July 11, 2003. Myron Cohen, Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman Pavane, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Lance J. Lieberman and Jeremy Kaufman. Stephen Walsh, Associate Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel were Cynthia C. Lynch and William G. Jenks, Associate Solicitors. Before NEWMAN, RADER

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 28,135 times   296 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,615 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"

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 934 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services