§
Yodlee, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  2. In re Jobdiva, Inc.

    843 F.3d 936 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2015-1960 12-12-2016 IN RE: JOBDIVA, INC., Appellant Daniel I. Schloss, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda. Mary Beth Walker, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Christina Hieber. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Daniel I. Schloss , Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda . Mary

  3. In re Sones

    590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use" and disapproving of the "rigid, bright-line rule" the PTO applied

  4. In re Siny Corp.

    920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

    2018-1077 01-14-2019 IN RE: SINY CORP., Appellant Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Christina J. Hieber, Mary Beth Walker. Prost, Chief Judge. Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause

  5. Application of Universal Oil Products Co.

    476 F.2d 653 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8906 and 8933. April 19, 1973. John T. Lanahan, Des Plaines, Ill., of record, for appellant; Sidney W. Russell, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. These consolidated appeals are from decisions of the Patent Office

  6. 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

  7. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,039 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  8. 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