§

Serial Podcast, LLC

No. 86464485 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)
Serial Podcast, LLC

32 Cited authorities

  1. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,290 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  2. Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Limited

    155 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 246 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must consider application of digits in light of comparative advertising claim

  3. Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity

    507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 121 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys not to infringe on the venerable handbag maker's trademark

  4. Courtenay Communications Corp. v. Hall

    334 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 114 times
    Holding that use of trademarked term on website in a way that created the impression that the trademarked organization had endorsed defendants' services was not protected

  5. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  6. Mil-Mar Shoe Co., Inc. v. Shonac Corp.

    75 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that "Warehouse Shoes" is generic for large shoe store, based on evidence that more than 8,000 retail stores use the word "warehouse" in their names, and that hundreds of retail shoe stores use some form of either "Shoe Warehouse" or "Warehouse Shoes" in their names

  7. Liberto v. D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc.

    441 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2006)   Cited 68 times
    In Liberto v. D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., 441 F.3d 318, 327 (5th Cir. 2006), the consent judgment expressly incorporated a vague and inconclusive settlement agreement.

  8. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

    786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

  9. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  10. Rudolph v. Realys

    482 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 34 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment on basis term was generic

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 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 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 13 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate

  14. 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