§

The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Interco Tire Corp.

No. 91096404 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 1998)
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Interco Tire Corp.

16 Cited authorities

  1. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  2. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  3. Ralston Purina Company v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.

    341 F. Supp. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)   Cited 67 times
    Comparing cases involving different durations in the use of a mark

  4. Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull LTD

    35 F.3d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 27 times
    Holding color black for outboard motors was functional because, while it had no utilitarian effect on the mechanical working of the engines, it nevertheless provided other identifiable competitive advantages, for example ease of coordination with a variety of boat colors and reduction in the apparent size of the engines

  5. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

  6. D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.

    753 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 16 times
    Explaining that § 285 "authorizes us to award to the prevailing party before this court its attorney fees incurred in its successful handling of an appeal"

  7. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 89-1536. January 23, 1990. Thomas E. Young, Body, Vickers Daniels, Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Robert V. Vickers. Albin F. Drost, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NEWMAN and MAYER Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULL Senior District Judge. The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior

  8. In re R.M. Smith, Inc.

    734 F.2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that existence of design patent "may be some evidence of non-functionality"

  9. Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc.

    742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 U.S.P.Q. 939 (Fed. Cir. 1984), we affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register a mark for a shoe tab. Noting the significant prior use of such tabs by other companies, we held that "Levi's use of a tab on shoes has been neither first nor exclusive," thus, it failed to show that its mark was distinctive.

  10. WLWC Centers, Inc. v. Winners Corp.

    563 F. Supp. 717 (M.D. Tenn. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that three years of exclusive use was insufficient

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,722 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities