§

Signs Plus, New Ideas-New Technology, Inc.

No. 76225929 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2004)
Signs Plus, New Ideas-New Technology, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc.

    28 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 186 times
    Holding that it was clearly erroneous to infer secondary meaning from the copying of a product when the copier conspicuously used its own trademarks to distinguish its products

  2. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 101 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  3. In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

    774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 61 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the color "pink" as a trademark for manufacturer's fibrous glass residential insulation was valid when the pink color gave "the public a reliable indication of source and thus facilitate[d] responsible marketplace competition."

  4. Wiley v. American Greetings Corp.

    762 F.2d 139 (1st Cir. 1985)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that a red heart on a teddy bear "earrie[d] no distinctive message of origin to the consumer . . . given the heart shape's widespread use as decoration for any number of products put out by many different companies"

  5. 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

  6. In re Chemical Dynamics, Inc.

    839 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that generalized sales and advertising figures do not establish secondary meaning where the alleged mark is not promoted by itself but instead as part of a larger mark or with other designs or marks

  7. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"

  8. Application of David Crystal, Inc.

    296 F.2d 771 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6699. December 18, 1961. Arthur H. Seidel, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision

  9. Application of Standard Oil Company

    275 F.2d 945 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6493. March 8, 1960. Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio (Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,921 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  11. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,048 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark