15 U.S.C. § 1095
Registration on principal register not precluded
Registration of a mark on the supplemental register, or under the Act of
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1968–2019 · leading case: Clairol Inc. v. The Gillette Co., 389 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1968).
Clairol Inc. v. The Gillette Co., 389 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1968). “A mark which will not, prima facie, be protected may. through use become distinctive of an applicant’s goods, and thus receive protection (as well as eligibility for registration on the principal register — see 15 U.”
Eldon Indus., Inc. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “Significantly, § 124 of the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 codifies the holding in California Cooler , effective November 1989, at Lanham Act § 27, 15 U.S.C. § 1095 . See 3 Gilson, Trademark Protection and Practice, SREP-37 (Spec.”
In Re Bush Bros. & Co., 884 F.2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1095 . However, at the time of application for registration on the Supplemental Register the future is unknown, for it depends on such factors as the applicant’s ensuing advertising and marketing efforts and their effect on the public.”
Fleet Feet Inc. v. Nike Inc. (M.D.N.C. 2019). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1095 . other hand, the USPTO did not seem to agree,47 and while the Court has not given this much weight—given that it appears to be tentative, and the Court is not sure what evidence the USPTO had when it made this finding—it does support the other evidence of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.