§

Shael Norris v. PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment

91234909 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)
Shael Norris v. PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment

12 Cited authorities

  1. Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Mfg. Company, Inc.

    508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1975)   Cited 107 times
    Noting that a “single use in trade may sustain trademark rights if followed by continuous commercial utilization”

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  3. Crash Dummy v. Mattel

    601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"

  4. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  5. M.Z. Berger & Co. v. Swatch AG

    787 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 12 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Noting that while an application may be made for registration based on a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce, actual commercial use must be shown before registration

  6. Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.

    859 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding decision of USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that defendant, rather than plaintiff, owned disputed trademark, even though plaintiff had registered the trademark and defendant had not, because defendant was first to use trademark in commerce

  7. Young v. AGB Corp.

    152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 19 times

    No. 98-1055 DECIDED: August 17, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Sharon Dinwiddie, Burke Blue, P.A., of Panama City, Florida, argued for appellant. On the brief was Edward A. Hutchinson, Jr. Pamela Ann Bresnahan, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Cory M. Amron. Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. John

  8. Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc.

    9 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times

    No. 93-1204. November 17, 1993. Howard P. Peck, Atty., Abelman, Frayne Schwab, New York City, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Julianne Abelman. Mark F. Harrington, Atty., Perman Green, Fairfield, CT, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before RICH, MAYER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) which both sustained and dismissed

  9. Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

    534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect

  10. Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.

    849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

  11. 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

  12. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified