Teresa H. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 30 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.
695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 25 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"
In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States
675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 8 times 2 Legal Analyses
No. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor
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
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
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"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 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"

Teresa H. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

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

Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc.

Application of Abcor Development Corp.

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

In re Hutchinson Technology Inc.

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"

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"