§

Osho Friends International v. Osho International Foundation

No. 91121040 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2009)
Osho Friends International v. Osho International Foundation

19 Cited authorities

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

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 950 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  2. Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc.

    874 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court should have based its assessment of damages on net profits rather than gross profits

  3. Harley-Davidson Inc. v. Grottanelli

    164 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whatever distinctiveness the nickname "hog" might have once had, it had become generic, in part because of the plaintiffs "deliberate resistance" to linking its products to the word

  4. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  5. Pilates, Inc. v. Current Concepts, Inc.

    120 F. Supp. 2d 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that "sporadic uses" of a mark for equipment over a three-year period, including "two or three" sales and the distribution of a brochure advertising the equipment, did not defeat a finding of nonuse

  6. 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

  7. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. 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"