Source: https://www.oblon.com/publications/a-critique-of-cases-from-the-trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-july-1998-march-1999/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 17:13:33+00:00

Document:
SEAFOOD ROYALE for frozen seafood likely to cause confusion with SHRIMP ROYALE for packaged cooked meal containing shrimp.
In re L.C. Licensing Inc.
LIZSPORT for fragrances and toiletries likely to cause confusion with LIZ for fragrances, toiletries, and cosmetics.
TARIFF CONTROL for computer programs and hardware and manuals to control wide area network usage merely descriptive.
In re Patent and Trademark Services Inc.
PATENT & TRADEMARK SERVICES, INC. For legal representation in area of intellectual property merely descriptive.
In re Dos Padres Inc.
QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME for cheese merely descriptive.
In re Boston Beer Co. L.P.
THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA for beer was laudatory term and therefore merely descriptive.
In re Central Sprinkler Co.
ATTIC for automatic sprinklers was generic adjective.
WEB COMMUNICATIONS for consulting services for establishing web sites was generic term.
CAROLINA APPAREL for retail clothing store services was primarily geographically descriptive.
In re U.S. Cargo, Inc.
U.S. CARGO for towable trailers for carrying cargo was primarily geographically descriptive.
In re Barcardi & Co. Ltd.
Marks containing HAVANA or HABANA for rum, distilled spirits, and rum drinks were primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.
NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY for backpacks, duffle bags, etc. not made in New York was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.
In re Benetton Group S.p.A.
Green rectangle used as background for word mark for clothing and footwear not shown to be distinctive.
Tubular lights running length of bowling alleys for entertainment services in nature of bowling alley not distinctive.
In re Edward Ski Products Inc.
In re Brass-Craft Manufacturing Co.
Directions for use of plumbing supplies did not function as trademark.
Internet domain name on lawyer's letterhead did not function as service mark.
In re International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.
Applications for Phantom marks, with X's showing where names of herbs, fruits, plants, or vegetables would be in complete designations, for essential oils and fragrances for use in manufacturing refused on ground specimens did not show exact marks of drawings.
DIAMOND T & Design for trucks, parts, and accessories did not falsely suggest connection with defunct company. DIAMOND T for t-shirts did not falsely suggest connection and was a trademark. DIAMOND T for magazines whose subject matter was old DIAMOND T trucks of defunct company was descriptive.
In re Live Earth Products Inc.
Failure to file an appeal brief resulted in dismissal of ex parte appeal. Brief due sixty (60) days from filing of notice of appeal.
Applicant's CRYSTAL CREEK for wine not likely to cause confusion with Opposer's CRISTAL and CRISTAL CHAMPAGNE & Design for champagne.
Opposition by manufacturer of statues of animals failed to state claim upon which relief could be granted in opposition against one of his statues as service mark for restaurant on ground registration would impede additional sales of statues.
Life Corp. v. Carefree Trading Corp.
Restaurant's LIFE for face masks for cardiac pulmonary resuscitation likely to cause confusion with cancellation petitioner's LIFE CORPORATION, LIFE CORPORATION OXYGEN PAC & Design, and LIFE-02 for emergency first aid resuscitators and inhalators.
Uncle Ben's Inc. v. Stubenberg International Inc.
Applicant's BEN'S BREAD for bread mixes likely to cause confusion with opposer's UNCLE BEN'S for food products.
Applicant's Design of Penguin for computer programs and manuals for maintenance management likely to cause confusion with opposer's marks PENGUIN and Design of Penguin for books. Applicant's petition to cancel unpleaded registration of opposer for PENGUIN for books dismissed.
Applicant's ULTRATAN for tanning-related products likely to cause confusion with opposer's ULTRATAN & Design for tanning salons.
Miguel Torres S.A. v. Casa Vincola Gerardo Cesari S.r.L.
Applicant's DUE TORRI & Design of Towers and Banner with designation 2 TORRI for wines likely to cause confusion with opposer's TORRES & Design of Three Towers for brandy and wine and TRES TORRES for brandy. Opposition, on inter parties record, reached different conclusion from ex parte appeal.
Applicant's FOSSILSCAPES THE FOSSIL GROUP STONESCAPES & Design for fossil-backed clocks likely to cause confusion with opposer's FOSSIL for watches. Applicant's mark for ornamental fossils and marble tabletops not likely to cause confusion with opposer's mark for different goods.
Brewski Beer Co. v. Brewski Brothers Inc.
Respondent's BREWSKI BROTHERS for clothing not likely to cause confusion with petitioner's BREWSKY'S service mark and trade name for bar services and respondent's mark not abandoned. Respondent's counterclaim for cancellation dismissed. Petitioner's mark not abandoned by invalid license.
Applicant's COUNTRY ROCK CAFE & Design for jewelry, beverage glassware, clothing, and restaurant and nightclub services not likely to cause confusion with opposer's HARD ROCK CAFE & Design for restaurant and prepared take-out food services.
Corporate Document Services Inc. v. I.C.E.D. Management Inc.
Applicant won summary judgment dismissing opposition on ground its use of COPY CLUB was earlier than opposer's use of THE COPY CLUB.
Pro-Football Inc. v. Nocona Leather Goods Co.
Applicant's motion to dismiss opposition on ground opposers failed to state claim because opposers could not prove priority of use denied. Allegations pleaded in notice of opposition were sufficient to assert opposers' priority.
Chatam International Inc. v. Abita Brewing Co.
Applicant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on ground opposer pleaded use of PURPLE HAZE to promote sale of alcoholic beverages consisting of sake and opposer's CHAMBORD liqueur denied. Opposer pleaded use of PURPLE HAZE in manner analogous to trademark use. Sufficient to plead a proprietary right.
Vaughn Russell Candy Co. v. Cookies in Bloom Inc.
Applicant entered into written agreement it would stop using part of its mark. Material amendment of drawing not permitted. Applicant could no longer make lawful use of opposed mark. Summary judgment for opposer.
Institut National Des Appellations v. Brown-Forman Corp.
Two separate opposers, agency of French government and private organization of wine and spirits growers, producers, and merchants from Cognac region of France opposed application to register CANADIAN MIST AND COGNAC for alcoholic beverage. Applicant's mark did not falsely suggest association because COGNAC did not point uniquely to one persona. COGNAC could be valid certification mark. Could be likelihood of confusion between trademark and certification mark. Prior judgment against mark MIST AND COGNAC was not res judicata in opposition against different mark.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vogue Tyre & Rubber Co.
Applicant's Gold Annular Stripe on a black sidewall tire was merely ornamental feature, not a trademark.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Interco Tire Corp.
Applicant's tread design for a tire was not functional but applicant did not prove design had acquired distinctiveness as a trademark.
Opposition sustained on ground designation MASSFLO for flowmeters for measurement of flow of mass of fluids was generic term. Opposer's motion, filed with brief, to add mere descriptiveness as additional ground of opposition denied because applicant not on notice that issue was tried.
Extensive discussion of evidentiary issues on motion for summary judgment.
Extensive discussion of motion practice, discovery, and trial evidence. Natural person residing in foreign country cannot be compelled to come to United States for a discovery deposition. To obtain trial testimony of adverse witness residing in foreign country, party seeking testimony must resort to letters rogatory.
Material Supply International Inc. v. Sunmatch Industrial Co.
Party seeking in District Court review of TTAB decision, where jury issues also tried, entitled to jury determination of which party owned mark. District Court should have waited for jury determination and then should have decided review of TTAB decision on basis of jury's factual finding.
In re Atlantic Scientific Corp.
Change of Practice - Filing date will not be denied merely because goods or services are described in method of use clause.
Application filed under Section 44 must allege bona fide intention to use mark in commerce.
In re Moisture Jazz Inc.
Change of Practice - Petition to grant extension of time to file statement of use will not be dismissed as moot solely because applicant did not file further requests for extension while petition was pending. Three-year deadline cannot be waived.
In re Little Caesar Enterprises Inc.
Applicant was allowed to divide goods out of application outside of time period provided by Rule 2.87(c). Potential opposer consented.
Application abandoned for failure to respond to Office Action rejecting specimens filed with statement of use for one class of two class application. Specimens for second class were acceptable. Application revived for that class.
Change of Practice - Specimen for Section 8 D eclaration may be accepted after close of sixth year if it shows dominant feature of mark and was in use during sixth year.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.