§

Warner-Lambert Co. v. Nabisco, Inc.

No. 91092062 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 1999)
Warner-Lambert Co. v. Nabisco, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 815 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  2. A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman

    808 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "chocolate fudge" — a generic term for chocolate fudge-flavored soda — is not protectable

  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. Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.

    750 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1984)   Cited 60 times
    Holding "L.A." suggestive of low alcohol beer

  5. King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries

    321 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1963)   Cited 95 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to determine whether trademark is generic, a court must determine the "principal significance of the word . . . its indication of the nature or class of an article, rather than an indication of its origin."

  6. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  7. 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).

  8. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  9. American Thermos Prod. Co. v. Aladdin Indus., Inc.

    207 F. Supp. 9 (D. Conn. 1962)   Cited 31 times
    Addressing the "Thermos Survey" which asks participants how they would identify a particular product given that it performs certain functions, in an effort to identify if the name of the product is generic