§
Virtuoso, Ltd.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Jobdiva, Inc.

    843 F.3d 936 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2015-1960 12-12-2016 IN RE: JOBDIVA, INC., Appellant Daniel I. Schloss, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda. Mary Beth Walker, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Christina Hieber. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Daniel I. Schloss , Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda . Mary

  3. In re Advertising Marketing Development

    821 F.2d 614 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that advertising firm had used THE NOW GENERATION as a mark for its promotional services based on letterhead naming itself as the "creators, producers and suppliers of THE NOW GENERATION sales promotion services" as well as "postcard and magazine advertising specimens to the same effect"

  4. Application of Universal Oil Products Co.

    476 F.2d 653 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8906 and 8933. April 19, 1973. John T. Lanahan, Des Plaines, Ill., of record, for appellant; Sidney W. Russell, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. These consolidated appeals are from decisions of the Patent Office

  5. Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

    15 U.S.C. § 45   Cited 3,973 times   605 Legal Analyses
    Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"

  6. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,920 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,044 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  8. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional

  9. Section 2.34 - Bases for filing a trademark or service mark application

    37 C.F.R. § 2.34   Cited 14 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application for a trademark or service mark must include one or more of the following five filing bases: (1)Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are: (i) The applicant's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; (ii) The date