15 Cited authorities
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
529 U.S. 205 (2000) Cited 799 times 41 Legal AnalysesHolding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive
Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD
568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 101 times 11 Legal AnalysesSetting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks
Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.
906 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 14 times 1 Legal Analyses2017-1959, 2017-2009 09-21-2018 REAL FOODS PTY LTD., Appellant v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Cross-Appellant Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Stephanie Spangler ; Kelly Watkins, Allentown, PA. William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber LLP, Austin, TX, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by Tyson David Smith, David Armendariz. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 timesFinding 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"
Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.
840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 46 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
In re Advertising Marketing Development
821 F.2d 614 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 21 timesHolding that advertising firm had used THE NOW GENERATION as a mark for its promotional services based on letterhead naming itself as the "creators, producers and suppliers of THE NOW GENERATION sales promotion services" as well as "postcard and magazine advertising specimens to the same effect"
INSTITUT NAT. DES APPELLATIONS v. VINTNERS
958 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 13 timesAffirming finding, on summary judgment, that the term "Chablis" is generic
In re Staffney v. Johnson Controls, W.C. No
W.C. No. 4-695-317 (Colo. Ind. App. Sep. 17, 2007)W.C. No. 4-695-317. September 17, 2007. FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Harr (ALJ) mailed on March 9, 2007, that denied and dismissed the claimant's claim for compensation. We affirm. A hearing was held on the issues of the compensability of the claim and whether the claimant proved that he was entitled to medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. Following the hearing the ALJ entered findings of fact that for the purposes of this order
In re Chemical Dynamics, Inc.
839 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 14 timesConcluding 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
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,914 times 126 Legal AnalysesRequiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,039 times 99 Legal AnalysesGranting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark