§

LG Electronics Inc.

88055289 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020)
LG Electronics Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.

    532 U.S. 23 (2001)   Cited 599 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

  2. Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.

    138 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 175 times
    Finding that the plaintiff's advertising that prominently featured the shape of the product could function to draw consumers' attention to the shape and to associate it with the plaintiff

  3. FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc.

    838 F.3d 1071 (11th Cir. 2016)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming district court's finding of use sufficient to establish ownership where party entered into ten-year contract to sell more than $634,000 worth of combat assault rifles to government, contract received extensive media attention, and party showcased rifles for public purchase at hundreds of trade shows and events, including one where it was " 'the number one talked about firearm'"

  4. Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. the West Bend Co.

    123 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that trade dress protection is not foreclosed

  5. Stuart Hall Co., Inc. v. Ampad Corp.

    51 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that even though a consumer survey focuses on confusion, a district court "should also examine whether the survey evidence contributes to a showing of secondary meaning"

  6. Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    907 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 37 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding party must prove design acquired secondary meaning before first infringement

  7. Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.

    892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness

  8. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.

    906 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2017-1959, 2017-2009 09-21-2018 REAL FOODS PTY LTD., Appellant v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Cross-Appellant Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Stephanie Spangler ; Kelly Watkins, Allentown, PA. William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber LLP, Austin, TX, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by Tyson David Smith, David Armendariz. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued

  9. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.

    797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark

  10. In re N.C. Lottery

    866 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2016-2558 08-10-2017 IN RE: NORTH CAROLINA LOTTERY, Appellant David E. Bennett, Coats & Bennett, PLLC, Cary, NC, argued for appellant. Also represented by David D. Kalish. William Lamarca, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas L. Casagrande, Christina Hieber. Prost, Chief Judge. David E. Bennett , Coats & Bennett, PLLC, Cary, NC, argued for appellant. Also represented by David

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,882 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 1,599 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"

  13. Section 1094 - Provisions of chapter applicable to registrations on supplemental register

    15 U.S.C. § 1094   Cited 31 times
    Declaring evidentiary presumptions of § 1057(b), among other statutes, inapplicable to marks on supplemental register

  14. Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 13 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate

  15. Section 2.20 - Declarations in lieu of oaths

    37 C.F.R. § 2.20   Cited 8 times   7 Legal Analyses

    Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746 , or the following declaration language, may be used: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 , and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and