§
SJP, LLC

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  2. 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).

  3. In re Bed & Breakfast Registry

    791 F.2d 157 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 24 times

    Appeal No. 85-2418. May 20, 1986. Mark E. Singer, Winnetka, Ill., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Trademark Examining Atty., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief, were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration on the Principal Register of the service

  4. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  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. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 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"

  8. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty

  9. Section 2.64 - Reinstatement of applications and registrations abandoned, cancelled, or expired due to Office error

    37 C.F.R. § 2.64

    (a)Request for Reinstatement of an Abandoned Application. The applicant may file a written request to reinstate an application abandoned due to Office error. There is no fee for a request for reinstatement. (1)Deadline. The applicant must file the request by not later than: (i) Two months after the issue date of the notice of abandonment; or (ii) Two months after the date of actual knowledge of the abandonment and not later than six months after the date the trademark electronic records system indicates