§

Vitamin Shoppe Procurement Services, Inc.

86905628 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2019)
Vitamin Shoppe Procurement Services, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Dranoff-Perlstein Associates v. Sklar

    967 F.2d 852 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 114 times
    Holding that mark corresponding to telephone number is entitled to trademark protection only to extent that it serves as "an indicator of source, sponsorship, approval or affiliation"

  2. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 25 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  3. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. v. Yoshida Int'l.

    393 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)   Cited 83 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that survey results indicating that 68% of consumers viewed Teflon as a brand name rebutted the claim that the mark was generic

  4. In re Hotels.com

    573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey

  5. 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"

  6. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 44 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  7. Elliot v. Google Inc.

    45 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (D. Ariz. 2014)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. CV–12–1072–PHX–SMM. 2014-09-11 David ELLIOT and Chris Gillespie, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INCORPORATED, Defendant. Google Incorporated, Counter–Claimant, v. David Elliot and Chris Gillespie, Counter–Defendants. Richard Michael Wirtz, Erin Kathleen Barns, Wirtz Law APC, Thomas D. Foster, TD Foster–Intellectual Property Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs/Counter–Defendants. George Chun Chen, Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Robert W. Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Angela L. Dunning, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto

  8. In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop

    571 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2009-1100. July 1, 2009. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 28, 2009. Scott Michael Moore, Moore International Law Offices, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Shannon M. Hansen, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Christina J

  9. Nestle Co., Inc. v. Chester's Market, Inc.

    571 F. Supp. 763 (D. Conn. 1983)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Civ. No. H-82-445. August 23, 1983. Thomas J. Ward, Michael A. Grow and Niles V. Montan, Washington, D.C., John F. Murphy, Jr., Stephen E. Goldman and Susan P. McHugh, Robinson, Robinson Cole, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff. Ralph C. Dixon and Richard Reynolds, Day, Berry Howard, Hartford, Conn., Barry H. Garfinkel, Herbert F. Kozlov and Jonathan J. Lerner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, New York City, Dominic J. Ferraina, Windsor, Conn., for defendants. RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY

  10. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co.

    272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921)   Cited 146 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding the media sources ambiguous as to the relevant public perception of the product at issue because "[t]he test is the common usage or understanding by the usual buyer and other relevant members of the public."

  11. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  12. Section 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter

    15 U.S.C. § 1056   Cited 69 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought

  13. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty