§

Allegiance Staffing

No. 85663950 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2015)
Allegiance Staffing

10 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. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  3. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  4. 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

  5. In re Teledyne Industries, Inc.

    696 F.2d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that applicant failed to rebut the examiner's prima facie case of functionality

  6. Peeler v. Miller

    535 F.2d 647 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that a four-year delay in filing a patent application after the invention was perfected was unreasonably long

  7. Jacobs v. International Multifoods Corp.

    668 F.2d 1234 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 5 times
    Analyzing the likelihood of confusion in a case that did not involve any survey

  8. Natl. Dist. Ch. v. William Grant Sons

    505 F.2d 719 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-566. November 27, 1974. David S. Patterson, Breed, Abbott Morgan, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant. Gerald J. Craugh, New York City, of counsel. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., atty. of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"

  10. Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.52   Cited 29 times
    Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”