§

D'Andrea Family Limited Partnership

No. 85834204 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014)
D'Andrea Family Limited Partnership

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA

  2. In re Save Venice New York, Inc.

    259 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Observing that " registered mark is incontestable only in the form registered and for the goods or services claimed"

  3. In re Spirits Intern., N.V

    563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

  4. In re Miracle Tuesday, Llc.

    695 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Describing analogous factors for primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks

  5. In re California Innovations, Inc.

    329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 9 times

    No. 02-1407. DECIDED: May 22, 2003. Michael A. Grow, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin Kahn, PLLC of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Charles M. Marmelstein and Evan S. Stolove. Henry G. Sawtelle, Associate, United States Patent and Trademark Office of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. California

  6. In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.

    769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco

  7. In re Les Halles De Paris J.V.

    334 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1539. July 11, 2003. Myron Cohen, Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman Pavane, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Lance J. Lieberman and Jeremy Kaufman. Stephen Walsh, Associate Solicitor, of Arlington, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel were Cynthia C. Lynch and William G. Jenks, Associate Solicitors. Before NEWMAN, RADER

  8. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,440 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  9. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,597 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"

  11. Section 9.122 - Western Connecticut Highlands

    27 C.F.R. § 9.122

    (a)Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is "Western Connecticut Highlands." (b)Approved map. The approved map for determining the boundaries of the "Western Connecticut Highlands" viticultural area is 1 U.S.G.S. 1:125,000 series map. It is titled State of Connecticut, Compiled in 1965, Edition of 1966. (c)Boundary description. The boundaries of the proposed Western Connecticut Highlands viticultural area are as follows: (1) The beginning point is where Connecticut Route