§

The Procter & Gamble Company

No. 77685052 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2012)
The Procter & Gamble Company

18 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 565 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

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

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 809 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  4. Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers Distr

    996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 267 times
    Holding that bad faith existed where the defendant selected a similar design to distribute

  5. Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Mach. Co.

    668 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff's evidence of nonfunctionality was insufficient as a matter of law where, “[e]xcept for conclusory, self-serving statements, [the plaintiff] provide[d] no other evidence of fanciful design or arbitrariness”

  6. 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

  7. Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co., v. Suave Shoe Corp.

    716 F.2d 854 (11th Cir. 1983)   Cited 93 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a design consisting of a "V," "7," or arrow on athletic shoes was common ornamentation such that it was not inherently distinctive

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  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

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,580 times   260 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 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 613 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"