§

Universal Technologies, Inc. v. Jillson & Roberts, Inc.

CANC (T.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 1997)
Universal Technologies, Inc. v. Jillson & Roberts, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. La Societe Anonyme des Parfums v. Jean Patou

    495 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that use of a trademark was not bona fide where its "real purpose" in making sales "was to establish and maintain rights in [its] trademark"

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  4. T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac

    77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services

  5. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  6. P. A. B. Produits, Etc. v. Satinine Societa

    570 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 13 times

    Appeal No. 77-589. February 16, 1978. Robert J. Patch, Washington, D.C. (Young Thompson, Arlington, Va.), attorneys of record, for appellant. G. Franklin Rothwell, Washington, D.C. (Sughrue, Rothwell, Mion, Zinn Macpeak, 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, Associate Judges. LANE, Judge. Registrant appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)

  7. Old Swiss House, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch

    569 F.2d 1130 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting news articles as evidence of "prior use" because the mark "was buried in the body of the articles"

  8. Sleepmaster Products Co. v. Am. Auto-Felt

    241 F.2d 738 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6228. February 21, 1957. Beekman Aitken, New York City (G. Cabell Busick, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Oscar W. Giese, Washington, D.C. (Peter P. Price, Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, RICH, and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal in a cancellation proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, 104 U.S.P.Q. 35, reversing the decision of the Examiner of

  9. Prince Dog & Cat Food Co. v. Central Nebraska Packing Co.

    49 C.C.P.A. 1328 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 7 times
    In Prince Dog Cat Food Co. v. Central Nebraska Co., 305 F.2d 904, 909, 49 CCPA 1328, 1335, 134 USPQ 366, 370 (1962), the court declared that section 18 "gives the Commissioner... authority to restrict a registration only `as the rights of the parties hereunder may be established in the [cancellation] proceedings.'"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,011 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark