13 Cited authorities
In re Bayer
488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 40 times 2 Legal AnalysesEndorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 timesFinding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"
In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.
340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal AnalysesNoting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn 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).
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.
703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
In re Gyulay
820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 14 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.
640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 20 timesRecognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context
Towers v. Advent Software, Inc.
913 F.2d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 6 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 90-1097. September 6, 1990. Helen Hill Minsker, of Beveridge, DeGrandi Weilacher, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was John T. Roberts. James L. Warren, of Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Kevin M. Fong and Marina H. Park. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CONTI, Senior District Judge. Circuit
Univ. Oil Prod. v. Rexall Drug Chemical
463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 12 timesFinding that the parent corporation had a "real interest" in the proceeding and thus "standing to institute and maintain it"
Application of Standard Oil Company
275 F.2d 945 (C.C.P.A. 1960) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 6493. March 8, 1960. Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio (Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,914 times 126 Legal AnalysesRequiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 148 times 19 Legal AnalysesIdentifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"