§

Allegheny Wood Products, Inc.

No. 85358279 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)
Allegheny Wood Products, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 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"

  4. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  5. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  6. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  7. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  8. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.

    565 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 77-576. November 23, 1977. Rober C. Comstock, Los Angeles, Cal., of record, for appellant. Edward A. Meilman, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, New York City, of record, for appellee; Sidney G. Faber, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing an

  9. Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing

    473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"