Search for: "In re Dial-a-Mattress Operating Corp."
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2009, 3:42 am
The CAFC has affirmed the TTAB's decision in In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., Serial No. 78976682 (November 13, 2009) [not precedential], in which the Board affirmed a refusal to register the term MATTRESS.COM on the Supplemental Register, for "online retail store services in the field of mattresses, beds and bedding," on the ground of genericness. [read post]
20 Aug 2018, 3:05 am
" In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1813 (Fed. [read post]
19 May 2017, 3:02 am
Applicant pointed to In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1813 (Fed. [read post]
6 May 2008, 4:30 am
See, e.g., In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 57 USPQ2d 1507 (Fed. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 3:17 am
” In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 5:21 am
The mark pleaded by Opposer is simply DENTISTRY DONE DIFFERENTLY, which is a different mark.The CAFC addressed the issue of what constitutes the "same mark" in In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 7:00 am
[Sixteen consolidated oppositions to registration of the three product configuration marks shown below, for guitars, on the grounds of mere descriptiveness and genericness.]September 30, 2008 - 2 PM: In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., Serial No. 787966821 [genericness refusal of MATTRESS.COM for "online retail store services in the field of mattresses, beds, and bedding. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 3:31 pm
., 786 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed.Cir. 2015) (citing In re Dial–A–Mattress Operating Corp.,240 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. [read post]
18 May 2016, 3:14 am
See In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812-13 (Fed. [read post]
28 Feb 2006, 11:42 pm
The CAFC made that clear in In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 57 USPQ2d 1807 (Fed. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 6:23 am
Dial-A-Mattress International, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639, 642 (7th Cir. 1993)). [read post]
