§

Woodlink, Ltd.

No. 78971622 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2009)
Woodlink, Ltd.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 799 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 604 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

  3. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America

    975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that " claim of trade dress infringement fails if secondary meaning did not exist before the infringement began" and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff

  4. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 110 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  5. Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.

    278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 60 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

  6. 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"

  7. Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Central Purchasing

    740 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that summary judgment on grounds of obviousness did not require a supporting expert's opinion

  8. Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    753 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the "overall design" of the product was functional, but proceeding to examine whether the two arguably non-functional features had acquired secondary meaning

  9. In re R.M. Smith, Inc.

    734 F.2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that existence of design patent "may be some evidence of non-functionality"

  10. Action Temporary Services v. Labor Force

    870 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 88-1446. March 23, 1989. J. Rodman Steele, Steele, Gould Fried, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory A. Nelson. Jonathan E. Jobe, Jr., Hubbard, Thurman, Turner Tucker, Dallas, Tex., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Molly Buck Richard. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this concurrent use proceeding, the

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,914 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 times   274 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"