§

Snowflake Enterprises, Llc

87496454 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2021)
Snowflake Enterprises, Llc

16 Cited authorities

  1. Matal v. Tam

    137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017)   Cited 341 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Lanham Act's prohibition on disparaging trademarks violates the First Amendment

  2. Iancu v. Brunetti

    139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019)   Cited 108 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Lanham Act's bar on the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and so violates the First Amendment, noting "[t]he Court's finding of viewpoint bias end the matter."

  3. In re Int'l Flavors Fragrances Inc.

    183 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 60 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "[t]he federal registration of a trademark does not create an exclusive property right in the mark."

  4. Seabrook Foods v. Bar-Well Foods LTD

    568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 100 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth analysis governing inherent distinctiveness of design marks

  5. In re Tam

    808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that if trademark registration amounts to government speech, "then copyright registration" which "has identical accoutrements" would "likewise amount to government speech"

  6. In re Brunetti

    877 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 6 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting an appendix containing marks denied registration "whose offensiveness cannot be reasonably questioned"

  7. In re Greenwood

    No. 87168719 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)

    87168719 12-01-2020 In re Lee Greenwood Paul W. Kruse of Bone McAllester Norton PLLC for Lee Greenwood Barbara A. Gaynor, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115, Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney. HEASLEY, ADMINISTRATIVE TRADEMARK JUDGE Paul W. Kruse of Bone McAllester Norton PLLC for Lee Greenwood Barbara A. Gaynor, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115, Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney. Before Greenbaum, Heasley, and Johnson, Administrative Trademark Judges. OPINION HEASLEY, ADMINISTRATIVE

  8. Anthony's Pizza Holding Co. v. Anthony's Pizza & Pasta International, Inc.

    415 F. App'x 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    No. 2010-1191. November 18, 2010. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Stewart J. Bellus, Collard Roe, P.C., of Roslyn, NY, for appellant. Garrett M. Tuttle, Ballard Spahr LLP, of Denver, CO, for appellee. With him on the brief was Jeffrey J. Cowman. Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and MOORE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") granted the petition of Anthony's Pizza Pasta International, Inc. ("APPI")

  9. In re Bose Corp.

    546 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-581. December 16, 1976. Charles Hieken, Hieken Cohen, Waltham, Mass., atty. of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker

  10. Hydra Mac, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

    507 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-559. January 9, 1975. Herman H. Bains, Minneapolis, Minn., attorney of record, for appellant. Donald W. Canady, Beverly Hills, Cal., G. Cabell Busick, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 180 USPQ 147 (1973), sustaining the opposition by appellee

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,910 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,033 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"

  14. Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.52   Cited 29 times
    Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

  15. 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