§

Softspikes, Inc.

No. 75480420 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2009)
Softspikes, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  2. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  3. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  4. 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

  5. Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co.

    299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that $3,000,000 in sales in one year was insufficient to establish secondary meaning

  6. Application of Colonial Stores Incorporated

    394 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that “SUGAR & SPICE” for baked goods was “more than a mere description of the ingredients of the goods” because it evokes associations with the rhyme “everything nice”

  7. Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.

    616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-613. March 13, 1980. Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal

  8. De Walt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.

    289 F.2d 656 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 25 times
    In DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656, 48 CCPA 909, at CCPA p. 918, we pointed out that "damage" will be presumed or inferred when the mark sought to be registered is descriptive of the goods of the opposer and the opposer is one who has an interest in using the descriptive term in its business, collecting a number of cases supporting the point.

  9. Application of Realistic Company

    440 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8529. May 13, 1971. Roy F. Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorney of record, for appellants. William A. Smith, Jr., Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Betty Hedrick Vertiz, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and SKELTON, Judge, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This appeal is from a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 159 USPQ 445 (1968), affirming the examiner's

  10. Armour and Company v. Organon, Inc.

    245 F.2d 495 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6266. June 25, 1957. Carl C. Batz and Frank T. Barber, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Alexander, Maltitz, Derenberg Daniels, New York City (Walter J. Derenberg and Joe E. Daniels, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, RICH and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal in an opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, 106 U.S.P.Q. 220, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner