§

Plyboo America, Inc. v. Smith & Fong Co.

No. 91103719 (T.T.A.B. May. 11, 1999)
Plyboo America, Inc. v. Smith & Fong Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  2. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

    994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times
    Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

  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. Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings

    576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

  5. De Walt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.

    289 F.2d 656 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 25 times
    In DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656, 48 CCPA 909, at CCPA p. 918, we pointed out that "damage" will be presumed or inferred when the mark sought to be registered is descriptive of the goods of the opposer and the opposer is one who has an interest in using the descriptive term in its business, collecting a number of cases supporting the point.

  6. Astra Pharmaceutical v. Pharmaton, S.A

    345 F.2d 189 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7261. May 20, 1965. Francis J. Sullivan, New York City (Joe E. Daniels, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Submitted on record by appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. Appellee Pharmaton, S.A., d.b.a. Pharmaton A.G. and Pharmaton Ltd. (Pharmaton), filed an application to register LIDOCATON on the Principal Register as a mark for a local anesthetic for dental and medical purposes. Application serial No. 115,721, filed

  7. Quaker Oats Co. v. St. Joe Processing Co.

    232 F.2d 653 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6204. April 18, 1956. Woodson, Pattishall Garner, William T. Woodson and Beverly W. Pattishall, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. No appearance or brief for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner, 102 USPQ 451, sustaining the decision of the Examiner of Interferences which dismissed appellant's notice