§

Alco Electronics Limited v. Rolf Strothmann

No. 92052572 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2012)
Alco Electronics Limited v. Rolf Strothmann

11 Cited authorities

  1. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  2. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  3. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 88 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  4. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  5. Rivard v. Linville

    133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

  6. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  7. Mission Dry Corp. v. Seven-Up Co.

    193 F.2d 201 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5826. December 18, 1951. Albert J. Fihe, Burbank, Cal. (Munson H. Lane, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. John H. Cassidy, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. JACKSON, Judge. On May 2, 1938, appellant filed its application, serial No. 405,933 to register the trade-mark "Charge Up" as applied to non-alcoholic, maltless beverages used as soft drinks, together with syrups and extracts for preparing

  8. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 338,983 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,038 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  10. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  11. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 929 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services