§

Gear Int’l. Trading Co.

No. 75463291 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2001)
Gear Int’l. Trading Co.

17 Cited authorities

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

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 58 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. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  3. 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"

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

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic

  5. In re the American Fertility Society

    188 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 23 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels

  6. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.

    940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

  7. S.S. Kresge Co. v. United Factory Outlet, Inc.

    598 F.2d 694 (1st Cir. 1979)   Cited 39 times
    Recognizing that change in usage could alter a word's generic status, but finding that such a shift has not yet occurred in the case of "The Mart"

  8. 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).

  9. Gear, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.

    670 F. Supp. 508 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 21 times

    No. 85 Civ. 5754 (CSH). July 29, 1987. Pennie Edmonds, New York City, Walter G. Marple, Jr., Judith D. Cohen, of counsel, for plaintiff. Kelley Drye Warren, New York City, Robert A. Horowitz, of counsel, Arant Kleinberg Lerner, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER HAIGHT, District Judge: This dispute between these young, highly successful business enterprises focuses this Court's attention on the commercial value of the simple English word "gear." Plaintiff Gear, Inc. sues

  10. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”