§

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

No. 77134281 (T.T.A.B. May. 6, 2009)
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. 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).

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Norsan Products, Inc. v. R.F. Schuele Corp.

    286 F. Supp. 12 (E.D. Wis. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    No. 64-C-245. June 28, 1968. David M. Hecht, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff. Patrick T. Sheedy, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant. OPINION REYNOLDS, District Judge. This is an action for an injunction against the infringement of a trade-mark. No damages are sought. Undisputed Facts Plaintiff is an Ohio corporation with its principal office in Milwaukee and produces a liquid stain remover called "Kuf 'N Kolar." This stain remover has been manufactured continuously since July 19, 1958, under the mark

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. Andrew J. McPartland v. Montgomery Ward

    164 F.2d 603 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5304. November 29, 1947. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents of United States Patent Office, T.M. Cancelation No. 4376. Trade-mark cancellation proceeding by Montgomery Ward Company against Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences sustaining the petition, the defendant appeals. Affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows, of New York City (Clarence M. Fisher, of Washington, D.C., and George