§

Hyundai Motor Company

88599443 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)
Hyundai Motor Company

40 Cited authorities

  1. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 949 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  2. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 573 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  3. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 238 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 108 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  5. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  6. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  7. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  8. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  9. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC

    794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"

  10. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 45 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  11. Section 2.63 - Action after response

    37 C.F.R. § 2.63   Cited 1 times

    (a)Repeated non-final refusal or requirement. After response by the applicant, the examining attorney will review all statutory refusals and/or requirement(s) in light of the response. (1) If, after review of the applicant's response, the examining attorney issues a non-final action that maintains any previously issued substantive refusal(s) to register or repeats any requirement(s), the applicant may submit a timely response to the action under § 2.62(a) . (2) If, after review of the applicant's