VanillaGorilla, L.P.

13 Cited authorities

Armstrong Co. v. Nu-Enamel Corp.
305 U.S. 315 (1938) Cited 344 times
Holding that registration of a mark "does not create any substantive rights in the registrant"
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 times
Finding 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"
Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asph. Co.
220 U.S. 446 (1911) Cited 128 times
Holding that a trademark in "Ruberoid"—a misspelling of "Rubberoid"—was descriptive and did not "become arbitrary by being misspelled"
In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.
340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting 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 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).
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 Analyses
In 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.
Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.
616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980) Cited 9 times 1 Legal Analyses
Appeal No. 79-613. March 13, 1980. Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Weiss Noodle v. Golden Cracknel Specialty
290 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 25 times
Denying registration of a generically descriptive mark in Hungarian
King-Kup Candies, Inc. v. King Candy Co.
288 F.2d 944 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 7 times
Holding that KING'S and KING-KUP share a dominant root and, thus, are confusingly similar
Fleetwood Company v. Mende
298 F.2d 797 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 5 times
In Fleetwood Company v. Mende, 298 F.2d 797, 49 CCPA 907 (1962), the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reviewed a decision of the Patent Office Board dismissing a petition by Fleetwood for cancellation of the mark TINT'N SET, and held that there was no likelihood of confusion or mistake between that mark and Fleetwood's prior registered mark, TINTZ, for similar products sold in the same channels of trade.
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,616 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"

VanillaGorilla, L.P.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that registration of a mark "does not create any substantive rights in the registrant"

Finding 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"

Holding that a trademark in "Ruberoid"—a misspelling of "Rubberoid"—was descriptive and did not "become arbitrary by being misspelled"

Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive

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).

In 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.

Denying registration of a generically descriptive mark in Hungarian

Holding that KING'S and KING-KUP share a dominant root and, thus, are confusingly similar

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"