§

Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd v. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation U.S. Music Corporation v. (same) Warmoth Guitar Products, Inc. v. (same) Indoor Storm Ltd. v. (same) Tradition Guitars, Inc. v. (same) Raise Praise, Inc. v. (same) Schecter Guitar Research, Inc. v. (same) JS Technologies, Inc. v. (same) W D Music Products, Inc. v. (same) Sadowsky Guitars Ltd. v. (same) The ESP Guitar Company v. (same) Lakland Musical Instruments, LLC v. (same) Michael Tobias v. (same) Richard Keldsen v. (same) Levinson Music Products, Ltd. v. (same) James Triggs v. (same) Peavey Electronic Corporation v. (same)

OPP (T.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2009)
Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd v. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation U.S. Music Corporation v. (same) Warmoth Guitar Products, Inc. v. (same) Indoor Storm Ltd. v. (same) Tradition Guitars, Inc. v. (same) Raise Praise, Inc. v. (same) Schecter Guitar Research, Inc. v. (same) JS Technologies, Inc. v. (same) W D Music Products, Inc. v. (same) Sadowsky Guitars Ltd. v. (same) The ESP Guitar Company v. (same) Lakland Musical Instruments, LLC v. (same) Michael Tobias v. (same) Richard Keldsen v. (same) Levinson Music Products, Ltd. v. (same) James Triggs v. (same) Peavey Electronic Corporation v. (same)

34 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc.

    262 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 456 times
    Holding that “a plaintiff asserting that a trade dress protects an entire line of different products must articulate the specific common elements sought to be protected,” and that “the artistic combination of cable [jewelry] with other elements” did not sufficiently set forth the trade dress at issue

  3. Abercrombie Fitch v. Am. Eagle Outfitters

    280 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 324 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because the trademarks of Abercrombie & Fitch and American Eagle were displayed throughout their clothing catalogs, the catalogs' trade dresses were, “as a matter of law, not similar”

  4. Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co.

    113 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "focus on the overall look of a product does not permit a plaintiff to dispense with an articulation of the specific elements which comprise its distinct dress," because the court must be able to evaluate the claim and narrowly tailor relief

  5. Hermes Int'l v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc.

    219 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that "laches is not a defense against injunctive relief when the defendant intended the infringement"

  6. Solitron Devices v. Island Territory of Curacao

    416 U.S. 986 (1974)   Cited 130 times
    Granting enforcement

  7. 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

  8. First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

    809 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that a showing of likelihood of success is essential for a preliminary injunction

  9. Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.

    65 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that "Copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendant's intent in copying is to confuse consumers and pass off his product as the plaintiff's. In that situation, the defendant's belief that plaintiff's trade dress has acquired secondary meaning — so that his copying will indeed facilitate his passing off — is some evidence that the trade dress actually has acquired secondary meaning."

  10. Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

    558 U.S. 1025 (2009)

    No. 09–326. 2009-11-16 Suzan S. HARJO, et al., petitioners, v. PRO–FOOTBALL, INC. Case below, 565 F.3d 880. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,798 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 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 887 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services