§

Planalytics, Inc.

No. 76321755 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2004)
Planalytics, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Armstrong Co. v. Nu-Enamel Corp.

    305 U.S. 315 (1938)   Cited 344 times
    Holding that registration of a mark "does not create any substantive rights in the registrant"

  2. Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asph. Co.

    220 U.S. 446 (1911)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a trademark in "Ruberoid"—a misspelling of "Rubberoid"—was descriptive and did not "become arbitrary by being misspelled"

  3. 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).

  4. In re Gould Paper Corp.

    834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 20 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the compound term "SCREEN-WIPE" is generic as applied to wipes for cleaning monitor screens

  5. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  6. Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.

    616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 79-613. March 13, 1980. Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal

  7. Shaw-Barton, Inc. v. John Baumgarth Co.

    313 F.2d 167 (7th Cir. 1963)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that "Homemaker" calendars are descriptive of the class of users

  8. Meehanite Metal Corp. v. Int'l Nickel Co.

    262 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6297. January 9, 1959. Woodling Krost, Cleveland, Ohio (George V. Woodling and Bruce B. Krost, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant. Anthony William Deller, New York City (Fred A. Klein, New York City, and Aaron R. Townshend, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellee. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences

  9. 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"

  10. Section 2.61 - Action by examiner

    37 C.F.R. § 2.61   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Applications for registration, including amendments to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act, and statements of use under section 1(d) of the Act, will be examined and, if the applicant is found not entitled to registration for any reason, applicant will be notified and advised of the reasons therefor and of any formal requirements or objections. (b) The Office may require the applicant to furnish such information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and such additional specimens as may