§

Monkey IP Limited

88265123 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2020)
Monkey IP Limited

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  2. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 25 times
    Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

  3. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

  4. 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

  5. In re 1800Mattress.Com IP, LLC

    586 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "MATTRESS.COM" generic in relation to online retail store services in the field of mattresses was supported by substantial evidence

  6. In re Fox

    702 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register COCK SUCKER mark for lollipops

  7. In re Spirits Intern., N.V

    563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

  8. In re Budge Mfg. Co., Inc.

    857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1541. September 21, 1988. Eugene E. Renz, Jr., Eugene E. Renz, Jr., P.C., Media, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John S. Munday. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Com'r of Patents and Trademarks, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge.

  9. In re White

    C.A. No. 19498 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2000)

    C.A. No. 19498. Dated April 26, 2000. Appeal from Judgment Entered in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, Ohio, Case Nos. DN 97-8-669, DN 97-8-670. CHRIS M. VANDEVERE, Attorney at Law, 631 West Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44302-1326, for Appellant. MICHAEL T. CALLAHAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and PHILIP D. BOGDANOFF, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 53 University Avenue, Akron, Ohio 44308, for Appellee. DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY CARR, Judge. Appellant Angela White appeals the judgment of

  10. Application of Helene Curtis Industries

    49 C.C.P.A. 1367 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6795. August 15, 1962. Lewis D. Konigsford, Chicago, Ill. (Max Wall, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of

  11. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,605 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"

  12. Section 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 185 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

  13. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"