§

Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. Doctor's Associates Inc.

No. 91192657 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2013)
Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. Doctor's Associates Inc.

38 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 2,013 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

  2. Permanent v. Lasting

    543 U.S. 111 (2004)   Cited 335 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding defense available even where likelihood of confusion established

  3. Boston v. Super

    531 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that a "complete phrase may signify something different than the sum of its parts" thus, the district court erred by focusing on the separate terms "duck" and "tours" and not the entire phrase together

  4. Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co.

    561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "light" and "lite" are generic adjectives for beer and opining that "[o]therwise a manufacturer could remove a common descriptive word from the public domain by investing his goods with an additional quality, thus gaining the exclusive right to call his wine `rose,' his whisky `blended,' or his bread `white'"

  5. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 58 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  6. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. v. Yoshida Int'l.

    393 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)   Cited 83 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that survey results indicating that 68% of consumers viewed Teflon as a brand name rebutted the claim that the mark was generic

  7. In re Steelbuilding.com

    415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

  8. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  9. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  10. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 101,635 times   699 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 48,644 times   338 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  13. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 23,619 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  14. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  15. 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

  16. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods