§

Continental Illinois Holding Corp.

EX (T.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)
Continental Illinois Holding Corp.

14 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Lopez

    514 U.S. 549 (1995)   Cited 2,406 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act "exceeds the authority of Congress to ‘regulate Commerce’ " as it "neither regulates a commercial activity nor" "contains jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce" (quoting U.S. Const. Art. I § 8 cl. 3 )

  2. United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co.

    248 U.S. 90 (1918)   Cited 548 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"

  3. Aycock Eng. v. Airflite

    560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's preparation to use the mark was insufficient to constitute use in commerce

  4. M.Z. Berger & Co. v. Swatch AG

    787 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 12 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Noting that while an application may be made for registration based on a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce, actual commercial use must be shown before registration

  5. Couture v. Playdom, Inc.

    778 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 12 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the offering of a service, without the actual provision of a service, is [in]sufficient to constitute use in commerce under Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127."

  6. Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.

    859 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding decision of USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that defendant, rather than plaintiff, owned disputed trademark, even though plaintiff had registered the trademark and defendant had not, because defendant was first to use trademark in commerce

  7. Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. adidas AG

    841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Christian Faith Fellowship, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concluded that two sales totaling $38 to two out-of-state residents were de minimis and therefore not sales in commerce.

  8. Avakoff v. Southern Pacific Co.

    765 F.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that an interstate shipment of trademarked goods from the manufacturer to the trademark owner was "purely a delivery of the goods to applicant from the manufacturer.... That is, it was a shipment of the goods in preparation for offering the goods for sale. It did not make the goods available to the purchasing public. Without more, this type of shipment is clearly not activity amounting to a sale or transportation of the goods in commerce and does not constitute a bona fide shipment sufficient to lay a foundation for federal registration."

  9. In re Bose Corp.

    546 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-581. December 16, 1976. Charles Hieken, Hieken Cohen, Waltham, Mass., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,873 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,003 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  12. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional

  13. Section 2.89 - Extensions of time for filing a statement of use

    37 C.F.R. § 2.89   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)First extension request after issuance of notice of allowance. The applicant may request a six-month extension of time to file the statement of use required by § 2.88 . The extension request must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act and must include the following: (1) A written request for an extension of time to file the statement of use; (2) The fee required by § 2.6 per class. The applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient

  14. Section 2.192 - Business to be conducted with decorum and courtesy

    37 C.F.R. § 2.192   1 Legal Analyses

    Trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and their attorneys or agents are required to conduct their business with decorum and courtesy. Documents presented in violation of this requirement will be submitted to the Director and will be returned by the Director's direct order. Complaints against trademark examining attorneys and other employees must be made in correspondence separate from other documents. 37 C.F.R. §2.192 Part 3 pertaining