14 Cited authorities
In re Bayer
488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 40 times 2 Legal AnalysesEndorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark
Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.
695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 25 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"
In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.
797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 15 times 1 Legal AnalysesDiscounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 timesFinding 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"
In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States
675 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 8 times 2 Legal AnalysesNo. 2011–1330. 2012-04-3 In re The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES of America. William M. Merone, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Edward T. Colbert. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor
In re Stereotaxis, Inc.
429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 7 timesAffirming TTAB's finding that STEREOTAXIS was descriptive of certain magnetic medical devices and services because it described their functions and purposes—performing the “stereotaxis” brain surgery technique
In re Slokevage
441 F.3d 957 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 5 times 2 Legal AnalysesInterpreting Wal-Mart and holding that, where the alleged trade dress is incorporated into the product itself, it amounts to product design
In re Gyulay
820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 14 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
Dena Corp. v. Belvedere International, Inc.
950 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 9 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 91-1156. December 4, 1991. John M. Curtin, Leydig, Voit Mayer, of Chicago, Ill., argued and James B. Muskal and Amy N. Cohen, Leydig, Voit Mayer, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief, for appellant. Donald L. Dennison, Dennison, Meserole, Pollack Scheiner, of Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MICHEL, PLAGER and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. In Opposition No. 81,365, Dena Corporation, opposer, appeals the Trademark Trial and
Application of Colonial Stores Incorporated
394 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1968) Cited 22 timesHolding that “SUGAR & SPICE” for baked goods was “more than a mere description of the ingredients of the goods” because it evokes associations with the rhyme “everything nice”
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,910 times 126 Legal AnalysesRequiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,607 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter
15 U.S.C. § 1056 Cited 69 times 3 Legal AnalysesLimiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought