In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States

8 Citing cases

  1. In re Driven Innovations, Inc.

    2016-1094 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2017)   2 Legal Analyses

    A term is descriptive if it "immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used." In re Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). A mark is suggestive if it "requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods."

  2. RXD Media, LLC v. IP Application Dev. LLC

    986 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2021)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing actual confusion as "the most important factor in determining 'likelihood of confusion' in trademark infringement claims"

    Here, the parties agree that "ipad" is not distinctive, but instead qualifies as a descriptive mark, because "ipad" describes the product or service, namely, an internet notepad. See In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S. , 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A party can obtain rights to use a descriptive mark only when the mark has acquired distinctiveness, or a "secondary meaning."

  3. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.

    2017-1959 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2018)   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus, the proposed marks' disclosure of this thin "characteristic" or "feature" of the goods is descriptive. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewing the marks as composites "do[es] not create a different impression."

  4. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.

    906 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus, the proposed marks’ disclosure of this thin "characteristic" or "feature" of the goods is descriptive. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. , 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewing the marks as composites "do[es] not create a different impression."

  5. Collision Chiropractors LLC v. Collision Injury Chiropractic PLLC

    No. CV-20-01897-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2022)

    . Descriptiveness is analyzed “in relation to the particular goods for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the good because of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used.”

  6. Provident Precious Metals, LLC v. Northwest Territorial Mint, LLC

    117 F. Supp. 3d 879 (N.D. Tex. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Id. Essentially, descriptive marks require no mental leap for the purchaser to connect the significance of the mark to the goods or services. In re Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d 1297, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2012). As an alternative test, courts ask “whether others in the same business would generally need the word to adequately describe their product or service.” Union Nat. Bank, 909 F.2d at n. 22 (explaining that “the need to use a term because it is generic or highly descriptive should be distinguished from the desire to use it because it is attractive”).

  7. Fla. Van Rentals, Inc. v. Auto Mobility Sales, Inc.

    85 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the term “discount mobility” is not descriptive specifically of mobility vehicles, it nevertheless is descriptive of the products and services generally offered by FLVR. That is all that is necessary—“[a] mark need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail to be descriptive, it need only describe a single feature or attribute.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, because the term “mobility” “naturally directs attention to the ... effect, or purpose of the product ... it is descriptive.”

  8. Libya v. Miski

    889 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    In In re The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that the term “National Chamber” was merely descriptive. 675 F.3d 1297, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2012). The Chamber of Commerce sought protection for the term “National Chamber” in connection with its offering of the following services: (1) providing online directory information services featuring information regarding local and state chambers of commerce; (2) providing information and news in the field of business, namely information and news on current events and on economic, legislative, and regulatory developments that can impact businesses; (3) administration of a discount program enabling participants to obtain discounts on goods and services; (4) analysis of governmental policy relating to businesses; and (5) business data analysis.