No summary, proceed to other tabs.

Click the topic headings to navigate through the cases and quotes concerning that topic.
Expand All | Contract All

  • In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, once a statement of use under § 2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • "In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, ...once ... a statement of use under § 2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services." Trademark Rule 2.51(b).
  • In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as intended to be used on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the application, and once an amendment to allege use under §2.76 or a statement of use under §2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • "In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as intended to be used on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the application, and once an amendment to allege use under §2.76 or a statement of use under §2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services." 37 CFR § 2.51(b). See also In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("The regulation's term ‘substantially' permits some inconsequential variation from the ‘exact representation' standard").
  • A mark cannot be shown as a typed or standard character drawing if it is stylized or has a design element that engenders an uncommon or ‘special' commercial impression that would be altered or lost were registration to issue based on a typed drawing.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • A mark cannot be shown as a typed or standard character drawing if it "is stylized or has a design element [that] engenders an uncommon or ‘special' commercial impression that would be altered or lost were registration to issue based on a typed drawing." Morton Norwich, 221 USPQ at 1023.
  • An applicant's drawing may be unacceptable where the depiction of the mark is unclear; and further, may not reproduce satisfactorily.
    • In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., Serial No. 76653159 (TTAB 2009)
      • Accordingly, applicant's drawing is unacceptable because, as the Examining Attorney correctly noted, "the depiction of the mark is unclear; the drawing is a photocopy of the mark with a smudged white line appearing across the top of the image, which will not reproduce satisfactorily."
  • Case Finding: Although the degree symbol in applicant's mark is not physically large, we find that it nonetheless substantially changes the overall impression of the mark.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • Although the degree symbol in applicant's mark is not physically large, we find that it nonetheless substantially changes the overall impression of the mark. Without the degree symbol, it is unclear what the "90" in the drawing might refer to. However, when viewed on applicant's specimens of use, the degree symbol in the mark would clearly be perceived as modifying the preceding number, making clear that its meaning is "ninety degrees," indicating that it refers to either an angle or a temperature. As such, the mark might possibly suggest to the potential purchaser that applicant's sports clothing is made for playing in especially hot weather, or indeed that the mark refers to an angle, as applicant contends.
  • Where an applicant ignores the requirement for a new drawing, the application should have been deemed abandoned.
    • In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., Serial No. 76653159 (TTAB 2009)
      • Applicant ignored the requirement for a new drawing, and therefore the application should have been deemed abandoned.
  • The TTAB must consider the goods as identified in the application.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • But as the examining attorney correctly points out, we must consider the goods as identified in the application. Cf. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)(likelihood of confusion). The application at issue here has no limitations as to the classes of consumers, channels of trade, or intended uses for the goods. Indeed, purchasers of many of applicant's goods need not be soccer cognoscenti or even athletes; "t-shirts, shirts, tanktops, pants, shorts, [and] sweatshirts" are commonly purchased by the general public for non-athletic use. Accordingly, we may not presume that applicant's purchasers are soccer players or athletes. Instead, we consider the marks from the viewpoint of the general public, including both athletes and non-athletes. There is no evidence in this record to indicate that members of the general public are familiar with the term "Upper 90" or "Upper 90°," let alone view them as "substantially exact."
  • Concerning a likelihood of confusion analysis, an applicant or registrant's intended interpretation of the mark is not necessarily the same as the consumer's perception of it.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • But as we have previously found in a likelihood of confusion analysis, an applicant or registrant's intended interpretation of the mark is not necessarily the same as the consumer's perception of it. Interpayment Svcs. Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1465 (TTAB 2003)("In short, it does not matter what applicant's intentions were in creating its mark or what its characterization of its mark is. The fact remains that the two symbols end up being substantially identical, and that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the public will perceive applicant's mark as the euro symbol.").
  • It is sometimes not clear what mark an applicant is actually using because it is not at all unusual for specimens to comprise multiple trademarks, artwork, and other matter, whether registrable or not.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • But this principle raises an obvious question: what mark is applicant actually using" The answer is sometimes not clear, because it is not at all unusual for specimens to comprise multiple trademarks, artwork, and other matter, whether registrable or not.
  • Case Finding: Even when the specimens showed two words sharing overlapping letters, the TTAB permitted the registration of the term DUMPMASTER separately.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • Finally, in a third case, even when the specimens showed two words sharing overlapping letters, the board permitted the registration of the term DUMPMASTER separately. In re Dempster Brothers, Inc., 132 USPQ 300 (TTAB 1961): [MARK DRAWING]
  • Submission of the TARR printout with its appeal brief, however, is an untimely submission of this evidence.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • FOOTNOTE 2 "In the ‘272 application, the examining attorney also objected to the new evidence that applicant attached to its brief. We sustain the objection and we will not consider evidence that has been submitted for the first time with applicant's brief. 37 CFR § 2.142(d). See also In re First Draft Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1183, 1192 (TTAB 2005) ("Submission of the TARR printout with its appeal brief, however, is an untimely submission of this evidence")."
  • Case Finding: Analsyis of SPEOTRAMET and SPECTRAMET cases.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • Here, while it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some purchasers may, at least initially, wonder if applicant's mark is actually SPEOTRAMET, most would view the mark as applicant indicates, SPECTRAMET. Not only is "Spectr-" a more common beginning for a word in English (spectral, spectrographic, spectrogram, spectrometer, spectrophotometer, spectroscope, spectrum, etc.), but also the fourth letter, as used by applicant, simply looks more similar to a "C" than an "O." There would be little reason for consumers to view the mark as displayed on the specimen as anything other than SPECTRAMET. We add that the arrow design is not a very significant element and the mark in the drawing and the specimens remain "the same in essence."
  • Where the examining attorney advised applicant in an office action that an amendment of the drawing to match the specimens would constitute a material alteration of the mark in the drawing, applicant is not prohibited from proffering such an amendment. The purpose of such an advisory is to indicate the USPTO's preliminary opinion that such an amendment would be futile, thus saving the time and resources of both the Office and the applicant. But if applicant wished to proffer such an amendment, so as to preserve the issue for possible appeal, it was not prevented from doing so.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • "However, the "material alteration" standard is not the issue in this case because applicant has not attempted to amend its drawing.3 FOOTNOTE 3 ""Although the examining attorney advised applicant in her first office action that an amendment of the drawing to match the specimens would constitute a material alteration of the mark in the drawing, applicant was not prohibited from proffering such an amendment. The purpose of such an advisory is to indicate the USPTO's preliminary opinion that such an amendment would be futile, thus saving the time and resources of both the Office and the applicant. But if applicant wished to proffer such an amendment, so as to preserve the issue for possible appeal, it was not prevented from doing so.
        Even if applicant had filed a proposed amendment to its drawing, we agree with the examining attorney that the amendment would almost surely have been (properly) refused as a material alteration. Although we cannot rule on a drawing which has not been submitted, we note that the addition of a drawing element which would require a further search is generally held to constitute a material alteration. See In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986). Moreover, as discussed below, UPPER 90 and UPPER 90° are significantly different in connotation, such that an amendment from the former to the latter would not create the impression of being essentially the same mark, and would require republication if raised later in prosecution. In re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997), quoting Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)."
  • If the drawing is not a complete representation of the trademark, i.e., if the drawing includes less than the mark which is actually used, registration must be refused.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • If the drawing is not a complete representation of the trademark, i.e., if the drawing includes less than the mark which is actually used, registration must be refused. See generally TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 807.12(d) (5th ed. 2007).
  • Case Finding: In another case, the TTAB reversed a refusal to register the term HY-LINE even though the specimens showed the words "HY-" and "LINE" separated by an "X" formed by drill bits (the applicant's goods).
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • In another case, the board reversed a refusal to register the term HY-LINE even though the specimens showed the words "HY-" and "LINE" separated by an "X" formed by drill bits (the applicant's goods). In re Lear Siegler, Inc., 190 USPQ 317, 317-18 (TTAB 1976) ("‘HY-LINE' is the only literal portion of the mark and therefore it is the part of the mark which will be used to order and distinguish the goods").
  • Case Finding: The use of the interlocking arrows to form the fourth letter in applicant's mark does not result in any such highlighting or emphasis of a particular element that has significance when considered on its own.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • In In re Morton Norwich Products, Inc., 221 USPQ 1023, 1023 (TTAB 1983), the board affirmed the refusal to register the mark LABID because the actual display of the mark involved a lower case "a" with a diacritical accent mark, that set off the "BID" portion of applicant's mark and "the ‘BID' portion of applicant's mark has an accepted meaning when applied as an abbreviation in drug prescriptions, i.e., twice a day." In applicant's case, the use of the interlocking arrows to form the fourth letter in applicant's mark does not result in any such highlighting or emphasis of a particular element that has significance when considered on its own.
  • The determination of whether a mark shown in the drawing is a substantially exact representation of the mark shown on the specimen is assuredly a subjective one.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • In the applications before us, we agree that the determination of whether a mark shown in the drawing is a substantially exact representation of the mark shown on the specimen is "assuredly a subjective one." In re R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 222 USPQ 552, 552 (TTAB 1984) (Applicant permitted to register BE MORE YOU even hough the specimen showed use of the mark with hyphens).
  • Case Finding: As the term SPECTRAMET creates a distinct commercial impression apart from any stylization or design element appearing on the specimens, the examining attorney's refusals to register on the ground that the mark in the drawing is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as displayed on the specimens in these cases are reversed.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • In the present case, we cannot find that the display of applicant's mark is uncommon, noteworthy, or extraordinary. Applicant's mark, like many marks, contains a design, but the Office encourages applicants to submit drawings that depict their marks in standard character form. See TMEP § 807.04(b). Here, inasmuch as the term SPECTRAMET creates a distinct commercial impression apart from any stylization or design element appearing on the ‘268 and ‘272 specimens, we reverse the examining attorney's refusals to register on the ground that the mark in the drawing is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as displayed on the pecimens in these cases.
  • It is up to the applicant to choose what it seeks to register. But what applicant seeks to register must not only be in use, it must make a distinct commercial impression as used.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • Needless to say, it is up to the applicant to choose what it seeks to register. But what applicant seeks to register must not only be in use, it must make a distinct commercial impression as used. In re 1175856 Ontario Ltd., 81 USPQ2d 1446, 1448 (TTAB 2006)("[I]t is well settled that an applicant may seek to register any portion of a composite mark if that portion presents a separate and distinct commercial impression....").
  • The mark as actually used must not be so entwined (physically or conceptually) with other material that it is not separable from it in the mind of the consumer.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • That is, the mark as actually used must not be so entwined (physically or conceptually) with other material that it is not separable from it in the mind of the consumer. In re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
  • The drawing depicts the mark sought to be registered.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • The "drawing depicts the mark sought to be registered." 37 CFR § 2.52.
  • The TTAB has discussed when a special form drawing is required and a typed drawing would, therefore, be inappropriate.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • "The board has discussed when a special form drawing is required and a typed drawing would, therefore, be inappropriate. ""In the particular instance it is our opinion that the adjective "special" must be given its ordinary meaning which would be "uncommon," "noteworthy," "extraordinary."

        As we view applicant's mark as used[,] the compound term "luncheon time" is presented in an uncommon manner to the extent that a prospective purchaser's initial impression of the mark might well be other than that which applicant may intend to convey by the well understood term "luncheon time.""" In re Dartmouth Marketing Co., Inc., 154 USPQ 557, 558 (TTAB 1967) (parentheticals omitted)."

  • The drawing in a trademark application may not be amended if the amendment constitutes a "material alteration" of the drawing in the application.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • The drawing in a trademark application may not be amended if the amendment constitutes a "material alteration" of the drawing in the application. Trademark Rule 2.72.
  • In In re United Services Life Insurance Co., the actual display of the mark was a critical factor in permitting the expression to function as a trademark.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • "The examining attorney's cases are distinguishable. In In re United Services Life Insurance Co., 181 USPQ 655, 656 (TTAB 1973), the actual display of the mark was a critical factor in permitting the expression to function as a trademark:
        The commercial impression of a mark is engendered by the mark as a whole and, more often than not, by the particular display or arrangement of the components thereof. This is especially so in the present case because the words "FOR LIFE INSURANCE SEE US" in an ordinary display is nothing more than a trite impression that may be devoid of the capability of identifying and distinguishing the life insurance services of any one particular company. It is manifestly the enlargement of the letters "US" (the initial letters of the distinguishing words of applicant's corporate name) and the underlining thereof that bestows upon the mark the double entendre which enables it to function as an indication of origin to purchasers of life insurance and therefore removes it from the category of unregistrable marks and slogans."""
  • The mere fact that there is a design element associated with the word in the mark does not prevent an applicant from using a typed or standard character drawing.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • The mere fact that there is a design element associated with the word in the mark does not prevent an applicant from using a typed or standard character drawing. For example in In re Oroweat Baking Co., 171 USPQ 168 (TTAB 1971), the board held that the mark OROWEAT could be registered without a special form drawing even though the mark as used showed a design within the letters "O" as shown below: [MARK DRAWING].
  • The mere possibility that one letter in applicant's mark may be perceived as an "O" or a "C" is not necessarily fatal to applicant's use of a standard character drawing.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • The mere possibility that one letter in applicant's mark may be perceived as an "O" or a "C" is not necessarily fatal to applicant's use of a standard character drawing. If this were the case, it would be difficult to use a standard character drawing whenever an uppercase letter "O" or the lowercase letter "l" is used because of their similarity to the numerals "0" (zero) and "1" (one).
  • An applicant may submit a standard character drawing when the word, letter, numeral, or combination thereof creates a distinct commercial impression apart from any stylization or design element appearing on the specimen. If a mark remains the same in essence and is recognizable regardless of the form or manner of display that is presented, displaying the mark in standard character format affords a quick and efficient way of showing the essence of the mark.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • "The TMEP sets out the following considerations for when a special form drawing is appropriate.
        ""The USPTO encourages the use of standard character drawings. As a general rule, an applicant may submit a standard character drawing when the word, letter, numeral, or combination thereof creates a distinct commercial impression apart from any stylization or design element appearing on the specimen. If a mark remains the same in essence and is recognizable regardless of the form or manner of display that is presented, displaying the mark in standard character format affords a quick and efficient way of showing the essence of the mark."" TMEP § 807.04(b) (5th ed. September 2007)."
  • Case Finding: Our conclusion is therefore that UPPER 90 does not form a "separate and distinct" commercial impression. It cannot be severed from the degree symbol without altering the meaning, pronunciation, and, to some extent, the appearance of the mark.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • Thus, the mark in the specimen has a different connotation, would be pronounced differently ("upper ninety" vs. "upper ninety degrees,") and looks slightly different than the mark sought to be registered. The degree symbol in this case clearly adds to the meaning of the mark in the application. Our conclusion is therefore that UPPER 90 does not form a "separate and distinct" commercial impression. It cannot be severed from the degree symbol without altering the meaning, pronunciation, and, to some extent, the appearance of the mark.
  • It all boils down to a judgment as to whether that designation for which registration is sought comprises a separate and distinct ‘trademark' in and of itself.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • To put it succinctly, "[i]t all boils down to a judgment as to whether that designation for which registration is sought comprises a separate and distinct ‘trademark' in and of itself." Institut des Appellations d'Origine v. Vintner's Int'l Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 1574, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Chem. Dynamics, 5 USPQ2d at 1829-30. Thus we must consider whether UPPER 90 makes a "separate and distinct commercial impression" from UPPER 90° as it appears in the specimens.
  • Trademark Rule 2.52(b)(1) provides that if the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color.
    • In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., Serial No. 76653159 (TTAB 2009)
      • Trademark Rule 2.52(b)(1) provides that "[i]f the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color." See also Trademark Rule 2.54(d).
  • Trademark Rule 2.54 reads as follow, so far as pertinent: "(d) Depict the mark in black ink, or in color if color is claimed as a feature of the mark. (e) Drawings must be typed or made with a pen or by a process that will provide high definition when copied … All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and must not be fine or crowded."
    • In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., Serial No. 76653159 (TTAB 2009)
      • Trademark Rule 2.54 reads as follow, so far as pertinent: "(d) Depict the mark in black ink, or in color if color is claimed as a feature of the mark. (e) Drawings must be typed or made with a pen or by a process that will provide high definition when copied … All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and must not be fine or crowded." See also Trademark Rule 2.53(c).
  • Trademark Rule 2.65(a) reads as follows, so far as pertinent: "If an applicant fails to respond, or to respond completely, within six months after the date an action is issued, the application shall be deemed abandoned."
    • In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., Serial No. 76653159 (TTAB 2009)
      • Trademark Rule 2.65(a) reads as follows, so far as pertinent: "If an applicant fails to respond, or to respond completely, within six months after the date an action is issued, the application shall be deemed abandoned."
  • When an applicant submits a standard character drawing it will often not be an exact representation of the mark as shown on the drawing because the very purpose of the typed or standard character drawing rule is to permit an applicant to apply for a mark without showing any particular style or design.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • We agree with applicant that when an applicant submits a standard character drawing it will often not be an "exact representation" of the mark as shown on the drawing because the very purpose of the typed or standard character drawing rule is to permit an applicant to apply for a mark without showing any particular style or design.
  • Where applicant claimed color as a feature of the mark but did not provide a color drawing, a filed black and white drawing is unacceptable.
    • In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., Serial No. 76653159 (TTAB 2009)
      • We also note that while applicant claimed the colors blue, yellow and white as features of the mark, it filed a black and white drawing. Trademark Rule 2.52(b)(1) provides that "[i]f the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color." See also Trademark Rule 2.54(d). Because applicant claimed color as a feature of the mark but did not provide a color drawing, the black and white drawing filed by applicant is unacceptable.
  • The "substantially exact" standard is more stringent than the "material alteration" standard; in other words, in some situations, a drawing that is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as used may nonetheless be amended to agree with such use, so long as the amendment does not materially alter the mark in the drawing.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • We look instead to the requirement set out in Trademark Rule 2.51(b), that "the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on ... the goods...."4 FOOTNOTE 4 "The "substantially exact" standard is more stringent than the "material alteration" standard; in other words, in some situations, a drawing that is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as used may nonetheless be amended to agree with such use, so long as the amendment does not materially alter the mark in the drawing. See generally TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP), §§ 807.12-807.13 (5th ed. 2007)."
  • When a trademark is used in a stylized form, there is always a possibility that some purchasers may interpret the stylized letters differently.
    • In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008)
      • When a trademark is used in a stylized form, there is always a possibility that some purchasers may interpret the stylized letters differently. For example in the Lear Siegler case, it certainly was possible that the mark could have been interpreted by some purchasers to be HY-X LINE rather than HY-LINE with a cross bit design in between the word portions of the mark.
  • The Declaration of the applicant's director of marketing is not very persuasive of how the mark would be perceived by the average consumer of applicant's goods.
    • In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008)
      • While we do not doubt the declarants' veracity or sincerity, we do not find this evidence persuasive of how the mark would be perceived by the average consumer of applicant's goods. Ms. Nemphos is applicant's director of marketing, and is thus well aware of the intended meaning and commercial impression of the mark.
In re Yale Sportswear Corporation, Application Serial No. 78653373 (TTAB 2008) In re wTe Corporation, Serial Nos. 78227268 and 78227272 (TTAB 2008) American Flange & Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Rieke Corporation, Opposition No. 91153479, (TTAB 2005) Duramax Marine, LLC v. R.W. Fernstrum & Company, Opposition No. 91119899, (TTAB 2005) Grand Total
In re 1175856 Ontario Ltd., 81 USPQ2d 1446 (TTAB 2006) 1
In re First Draft Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1183 (TTAB 2005) 1
Interpayment Svcs. Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463 (TTAB 2003) 1
In re Controls Corp. of America, 46 USPQ2d 1308 (TTAB 1998) 1
In re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616, 41 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2
Institut des Appellations d'Origine v. Vintner's Int'l Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 1574, 22 USPQ2d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 1
In re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2 2
In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307 (TTAB 1986) 1
In re R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 222 USPQ 552 (TTAB 1984) 1
In re Famous Foods Inc., 217 USPQ 177 (TTAB 1983) 1
In re North American Phillips Corporation, 217 USPQ 926 (TTAB 1983) 1
Visa International Service Association v. Life-Code Systems Inc., 220 USPQ 740 (TTAB 1983) 1
In re Morton Norwich Products, Inc., 221 USPQ 1023 (TTAB 1983) 2 2
In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981) 1
Fotomat Corp. v. Ace Corporation, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16114, 208 USPQ 92 (S.D. Cal. 1980) 1
Fotomat Corp. v. Photo Drive-Thru Inc., 425 F.Supp. 693, 193 USPQ 342 (D.N.J. 1977) 1
Fotomat Corp. v. Steven Cochran, d/b/a Quick Stop Photo, 437 F.Supp. 1231, 194 USPQ 128 (D. Kan. 1977) 1
In re Lear Siegler Inc., 190 USPQ 317 (TTAB 1976) 1
In re United Services Life Insurance Co., 181 USPQ 655 (TTAB 1973) 1
In re Oroweat Baking Co., 171 USPQ 168 (TTAB 1971) 1
In re Dartmouth Marketing Co., Inc., 154 USPQ 557 (TTAB 1967) 1
In re Deister Concentrator Co. Inc., 289 F.2d 496, 129 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1961) 1
In re Dempster Brothers Inc., 132 USPQ 300 (TTAB 1961) 1
Grand Total 9 10 2 5 26
No Statutes Listed