United States Federal Circuit

Because the mark -1-888-M-A-T-R-E-S-S- is descriptive of the relevant services, and has acquired prima facie distinctiveness as the legal equivalent of one of plaintiff's previously-registered marks, the examiner-s rejection of its intent-to-use application was improper.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/13/2001
• Published 02/13/2001

Judges

• MAYER, Chief Judge., Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Arthur L. Plevy,Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., of Princeton, New Jersey, argued for appellant.   With him on the brief was Susan J. Goldsmith.


• For Appellees:
  
• Albin F. Drost, Acting Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee.   With him on the brief were Nancy C. Slutter, Acting Deputy Solicitor;  Steven Walsh, and Eric Grimes, Associates Solicitors.   Of counsel was John M. Whealan, Solicitor.