Veneerstone, L.P.

14 Cited authorities

CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc.
531 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1975) Cited 95 times
Holding that "Consumer Electronics," as the name of a magazine in that industry, is generic
In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”
In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 57 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services
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"
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.
782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 45 times 8 Legal Analyses
Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
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"
Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.
940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 32 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"
In re Reed
482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 13 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board properly considered websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com" in their domain names to determine what the relevant public would understand LAWYERS.COM to mean
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).
In re Gould Paper Corp.
834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 20 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens
Section 1091 - Supplemental register
15 U.S.C. § 1091 Cited 78 times
Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"
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"

Veneerstone, L.P.

14 Cited authorities

Holding that "Consumer Electronics," as the name of a magazine in that industry, is generic

Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

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"

Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

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

Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

Holding that the Board properly considered websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com" in their domain names to determine what the relevant public would understand LAWYERS.COM to mean

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).

Holding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens

Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"

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"