§

Aldila, Inc. v. Lott

No. 92025703 (T.T.A.B. May. 31, 2001)
Aldila, Inc. v. Lott

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  3. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  4. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"

  5. In re Mars, Inc.

    741 F.2d 395 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 1 times

    Appeal No. 84-835. Decided August 10, 1984. Bradford E. Kile, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John J. Byrne, Washington, D.C. Henry W. Tarring, III, Arlington, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, RICH and BALDWIN, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the

  6. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

  7. Lone Star Manufacturing Co. v. Bill Beasley

    498 F.2d 906 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9201. July 3, 1974. Wofford, Felsman Fails, Fort Worth, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellant; Dennison, Dennison, Townshend Meserole, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Howard E. Moore, Dallas, Tex., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition to appellee's

  8. Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank & Supply Co.

    277 F.2d 192 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 11 times
    In Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank and Supply Co., 277 F.2d 192, 196, 47 CCPA 900, this court found likelihood of confusion between two marks on the basis of a similarity between the designs with which words were displayed. The word marks in that case ("Union" and "Columbian"), taken alone, were not in the least alike and certainly far less likely to cause confusion than the words involved in this appeal.