§

United States of America Supplements, LLC

No. 87737243 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)
United States of America Supplements, LLC

13 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 108 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.

    797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark

  3. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  4. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  5. In re Newbridge Cutlery Co.

    776 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1535. 01-15-2015 In re THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY (trading as Newbridge Silverware). Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Christina J. Hieber and Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors. LINN, Circuit Judge. Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United

  6. In re Chemical Dynamics, Inc.

    839 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that generalized sales and advertising figures do not establish secondary meaning where the alleged mark is not promoted by itself but instead as part of a larger mark or with other designs or marks

  7. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"

  8. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  9. Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc.

    427 F.2d 823 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser Knows for Sure" is protectable as a trademark

  10. Application of E.J. Brach Sons

    256 F.2d 325 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6374. June 18, 1958. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Fred S. Lockwood, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Associate Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, 112 U.S.P.Q. 267, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Trademarks which refused registration of applicant's alleged

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 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 1,600 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"

  13. 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"