§

Icelandic Provisions, Inc.

No. 86768287 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)
Icelandic Provisions, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 1,992 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 788 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  3. Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers Distr

    996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 269 times
    Holding that bad faith existed where the defendant selected a similar design to distribute

  4. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.

    28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

  5. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 99 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  6. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 26 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  7. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  8. 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.

  9. Application of Swift Co.

    223 F.2d 950 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6141. July 1, 1955. Roy G. Story, Chicago, Ill., Earl G. Spiker, Washington, D.C., and Edward C. Vandenburgh, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting C.J., and JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON, retired, Judges. COLE, Judge. The Examiner-in-Chief of the United States Patent Office, acting for the Commissioner of Patents, has held that appellant's alleged

  10. Application of McIlhenny Company

    278 F.2d 953 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that bottle for pepper sauce could not be registered without label where all the submitted advertisements depicted the bottle with labels emphasizing applicant's registered trademark "Tabasco" and its company name

  11. 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

  12. 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"