§

Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

No. 76542867 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2008)
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

10 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. 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

  3. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc.

    427 F.2d 823 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser Knows for Sure" is protectable as a trademark

  7. Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co.

    299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that $3,000,000 in sales in one year was insufficient to establish secondary meaning

  8. Application of Helena Rubinstein, Inc.

    410 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8144, 8145. May 15, 1969. Laforest S. Saulsbury, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, McGUIRE, Judge, sitting by designation, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. We are confronted here with two separate appeals from a single decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's refusal to

  9. Application of Sun Oil Company

    426 F.2d 401 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8320. May 28, 1970. Donald R. Johnson, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, D. Lenore Lady, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. Sun Oil Company brings this appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 155 USPQ 600 (1967), affirming

  10. Section 1091 - Supplemental register

    15 U.S.C. § 1091   Cited 78 times
    Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"