§

Tri-Coastal Design Group, Inc.

No. 85302240 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)
Tri-Coastal Design Group, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.

    698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's finding of secondary meaning was not clearly erroneous where Zatarain's sold 916,385 cases of Fish–Fri between 1964 and 1979

  2. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  3. Nautilus Group v. Icon Health and Fitness

    372 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that the district court's finding of "actual confusion" was improper where "the relatively small number of calls presented by Nautilus renders this evidence too unreliable"

  4. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

    675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 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

  5. In re Stereotaxis, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique

  6. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 36 times   2 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).

  7. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  8. Application of Andes Candies Inc.

    478 F.2d 1264 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 11 times

    Pat. Appeal No. 9065. June 14, 1973. E. Manning Giles, Chicago, Ill., atty. of record, for appellant. Pope, Ballard, Shepard Fowle, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Associate Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and

  9. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,882 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 times   274 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"