§

Grupo Bimbo, S.A. B. de C.V.

No. 78859187 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2008)
Grupo Bimbo, S.A. B. de C.V.

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  2. In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.

    340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

  4. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  5. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  6. In re Bongrain Intern

    894 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that "[g]rowth in sales" did not prove acquired distinctiveness where it "may indicate the popularity of the product itself rather than recognition of the mark"

  7. Cummins Engine Co. v. Continental Motors

    359 F.2d 892 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting challenge to standing even though petitioner "was not using the term as a trademark nor did it co[n]template doing so," and concluding that "[a]ppellee as a competitor of appellant clearly has reason to believe it will be damaged to the extent required by statute"

  8. Meehanite Metal Corp. v. Int'l Nickel Co.

    262 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6297. January 9, 1959. Woodling Krost, Cleveland, Ohio (George V. Woodling and Bruce B. Krost, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant. Anthony William Deller, New York City (Fred A. Klein, New York City, and Aaron R. Townshend, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellee. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,593 times   273 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"

  10. 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