§

The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and Paul W. Bryant, Jr. v. William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn

No. 91187103 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)
The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and Paul W. Bryant, Jr. v. William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn

66 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 776 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Bd. of Supervisors for L.S.U. v. Smack

    550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an intent to rely upon the drawing power [of the intellectual property] in enticing fans of the particular universities to purchase their shirts" is not nominative fair use

  3. Herman Miller v. Palazzetti Imports Exports

    270 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2001)   Cited 229 times
    Holding that increased potential liability for damages by itself was sufficient to show prejudice

  4. Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp.

    111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 204 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly admitted statements regarding consumer confusion because they were not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted and were offered to show the state of mind of the declarant

  5. Duraco Products v. Joy Plastic Enterprises

    40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 43 of the Lanham Act protects trade dress

  6. 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

  7. Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd.

    544 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that scarf designer could properly prevent use of her tradename on cosmetics

  8. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  9. Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.

    698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 127 times
    Holding distributor's use of the phrase "Here's Johnny" actionable under Michigan common law, see id. at 837

  10. 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."

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 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 1,585 times   272 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 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  14. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified

  15. Section 2.33 - Verified statement for a trademark or service mark

    37 C.F.R. § 2.33   Cited 11 times
    Setting forth the oath enshrining the statutory requirements

  16. Section 2.193 - Trademark correspondence and signature requirements

    37 C.F.R. § 2.193   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Signature required. Each piece of correspondence that requires a signature must bear: (1) A handwritten signature personally signed in permanent ink by the person named as the signatory, or a true copy thereof; or (2) An electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, personally entered by the person named as the signatory. The Office will accept an electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section on correspondence filed on paper

  17. Section 2.131 - Remand after decision in inter partes proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 2.131   Cited 1 times

    If, during an inter partes proceeding involving an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act, facts are disclosed which appear to render the mark unregistrable, but such matter has not been tried under the pleadings as filed by the parties or as they might be deemed to be amended under Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conform to the evidence, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in lieu of determining the matter in the decision on the proceeding, may remand the application