SnoWizard, Inc.

35 Cited authorities

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

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 1,959 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. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 772 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive
  3. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,261 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
  5. Duraco Products v. Joy Plastic Enterprises

    40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 43 of the Lanham Act protects trade dress
  6. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America

    975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that " claim of trade dress infringement fails if secondary meaning did not exist before the infringement began" and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff
  7. LeSportsac, Inc. v. K Mart Corp.

    754 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 203 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary meaning exists "when the purchasing public associates a [product's design] with a single producer or source rather than just with the product itself"
  8. Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc.

    67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 146 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding focus is on the overall ornamental features of the design
  9. M. Kramer Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Andrews

    783 F.2d 421 (4th Cir. 1986)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that computer programs are copyrightable
  10. Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co.

    832 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1987)   Cited 150 times
    Finding reseller's use of plaintiff's mark was infringing
  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,800 times   123 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 1,580 times   260 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 11 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