§

The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC

87445801 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)
The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC

24 Cited authorities

  1. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 963 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  2. Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 820 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  3. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.

    140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020)   Cited 63 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a term is generic "depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class"

  4. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

    786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 33 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

  5. 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

  6. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  7. Beckwith v. Commr. of Patents

    252 U.S. 538 (1920)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”

  8. Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.

    892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness

  9. CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc.

    531 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that "Consumer Electronics," as the name of a magazine in that industry, is generic

  10. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

    240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

  11. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty