§

Texas Instruments Inc.

No. 76233338 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2004)
Texas Instruments Inc.

11 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. Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd.

    71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 401 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fabric design, such as the artwork on plaintiff's sweaters, is copyrightable

  4. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.

    28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

  5. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA

  6. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 97 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  7. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding 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"

  8. In re Bose Corp.

    546 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-581. December 16, 1976. Charles Hieken, Hieken Cohen, Waltham, Mass., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker

  9. Application of E.J. Brach Sons

    256 F.2d 325 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6374. June 18, 1958. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Fred S. Lockwood, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Associate Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, 112 U.S.P.Q. 267, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Trademarks which refused registration of applicant's alleged

  10. Application of David Crystal, Inc.

    296 F.2d 771 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6699. December 18, 1961. Arthur H. Seidel, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision

  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