Six Continents Limited

14 Cited authorities

Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.
140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020) Cited 60 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether a term is generic "depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class"
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
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 times
Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"
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"
Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.
864 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 1 times
2016-1939 07-27-2017 Teresa H. EARNHARDT, Appellant v. KERRY EARNHARDT, INC., Appellee Uly Samuel Gunn, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones, Charlotte, NC. David Blaine Sanders, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Charlotte, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Cary Baxter Davis, Matthew Felton Tilley. Chen, Circuit Judge. Uly Samuel Gunn , Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Larry Currell Jones
In re Hutchinson Technology Inc.
852 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 19 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is "what the purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark as a whole"
Dena Corp. v. Belvedere International, Inc.
950 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 9 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 91-1156. December 4, 1991. John M. Curtin, Leydig, Voit Mayer, of Chicago, Ill., argued and James B. Muskal and Amy N. Cohen, Leydig, Voit Mayer, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief, for appellant. Donald L. Dennison, Dennison, Meserole, Pollack Scheiner, of Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MICHEL, PLAGER and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. In Opposition No. 81,365, Dena Corporation, opposer, appeals the Trademark Trial and
In re Etablissements Darty Et Fils
759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 8 times
In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."
Quaker St. Oil Ref. Corp. v. Quaker Oil
453 F.2d 1296 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 8 times
Deciding the "right to registration" of the trademark "SUPER BLEND" based on the "factual situation" of concurrent use "as of the time when registration is sought"
Application of Harris-Intertype Corporation
518 F.2d 629 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 5 times
In Harris, the court analyzed the Lanham Act's mandate that no trademark will be given to a name that is " primarily merely a surname."
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
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"
Section 1126 - International conventions
15 U.S.C. § 1126 Cited 185 times 29 Legal Analyses
Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

Six Continents Limited

14 Cited authorities

Holding that whether a term is generic "depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class"

Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

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"

Holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is "what the purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark as a whole"

In Darty et Fils, however, even though, the primary question was whether "Darty" was primarily merely a surname, the Board had correctly held that the Opposers’ "provides no support for their contention."

Deciding the "right to registration" of the trademark "SUPER BLEND" based on the "factual situation" of concurrent use "as of the time when registration is sought"

In Harris, the court analyzed the Lanham Act's mandate that no trademark will be given to a name that is " primarily merely a surname."

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"

Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"