§
Central Sprinkler Co.

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 57 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  2. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"

  3. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 45 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  4. In re Gould Paper Corp.

    834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 20 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens

  5. Remington Products v. North Am. Philips Corp.

    892 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the phrase "travel care" had "gone into the public domain as a category of goods designation in the marketplace by reason of its extensive use as such" by the time the trademark registration was sought, the point at which the descriptiveness of the mark is properly determined

  6. In re Seats, Inc.

    757 F.2d 274 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the word "SEATS" was not generic for ticket reservations services even though it could not be registered in connection with chairs or couches

  7. Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co.

    299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that $3,000,000 in sales in one year was insufficient to establish secondary meaning

  8. J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx and Company

    280 F.2d 437 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 6503. June 29, 1960. Abraham A. Saffitz, Washington, D.C. (Emanuel R. Posnack, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. James Franklin, New York City (Maxwell James, New York City, of counsel), for appellees. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge C. WILLIAM KRAFT, Jr. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 292(d)

  9. Application of Helena Rubinstein, Inc.

    410 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8144, 8145. May 15, 1969. Laforest S. Saulsbury, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, McGUIRE, Judge, sitting by designation, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. We are confronted here with two separate appeals from a single decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to

  10. Application of Sun Oil Company

    426 F.2d 401 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8320. May 28, 1970. Donald R. Johnson, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, D. Lenore Lady, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. Sun Oil Company brings this appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 155 USPQ 600 (1967), affirming