§

Toro Co. v. Buck Knives, Inc.

No. 91096756 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 1998)
Toro Co. v. Buck Knives, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Coach House Rest. v. Coach and Six Rest

    934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that a likelihood of confusion furnishes one ground for cancelling a registration

  2. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 82 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  3. J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  4. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

  5. Application of Singer Manufacturing Company

    255 F.2d 939 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6375. June 18, 1958. Chester A. Williams, Jr., Cranford, N.J. (Robert B. Harmon, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, C.J., and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, JJ. O'CONNELL, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, 112 USPQ 268, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Trademarks and refusing registration of appellant's mark for sewing machines

  6. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,953 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  7. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  8. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination