The Iconic Deo Volente Corporation

17 Cited authorities

  1. Beckwith v. Commr. of Patents

    252 U.S. 538 (1920)   Cited 165 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining “composite marks” as those which “contain both registerable and nonregisterable matter”
  2. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 15 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
  3. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services
  4. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP

    373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that, although not a perfect analogy, TLDs are similar to entity designations such as "Corp."
  5. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 15 times   3 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"
  6. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

    675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 6 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

  7. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 35 times   1 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).
  8. INSTITUT NAT. DES APPELLATIONS v. VINTNERS

    958 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 9 times
    Describing the law prior to NAFTA
  9. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
  10. Application of Colonial Stores Incorporated

    394 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that “SUGAR & SPICE” for baked goods was “more than a mere description of the ingredients of the goods” because it evokes associations with the rhyme “everything nice”
  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,275 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Requiring for use-based registration "such number of specimens or facsimiles of the mark as used as may be required by the Director"
  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,442 times   205 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. § 2.142 Time and manner of ex parte appeals

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

    (a) Any appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141 must be filed within six months from the date of the final refusal or the date of the action from which the appeal is taken. An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal in written form, as prescribed in § 2.126, and paying the appeal fee. (b)(1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty days from the date of appeal. If the brief is not filed within the time allowed, the appeal may be dismissed. The examining attorney shall, within

  14. § 2.76 Amendment to allege use

    37 C.F.R. § 2.76   Cited 3 times
    Requiring three specimens to support the declared date of the first use of the mark in commerce
  15. § 2.126 Form of submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

    37 C.F.R. § 2.126   Cited 1 times

    (a) Submissions must be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board via ESTTA. (1) Text in an electronic submission must be filed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. (2) Exhibits pertaining to an electronic submission must be made electronically as an attachment to the submission and must be clear and legible. (b) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, submissions may be filed in paper form. All submissions in paper