§

Allergan, Inc. v. Gems Style Inc.

91246051 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2020)
Allergan, Inc. v. Gems Style Inc.

63 Cited authorities

  1. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 255 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  2. Electro Med. Sys. v. Cooper Life Sciences

    34 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 518 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a particular embodiment appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than such embodiments

  3. Sands, Taylor Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.

    978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 290 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark to market a similar isotonic beverage was likely to cause confusion

  4. Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan

    867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 247 times
    Finding that similar actions "clearly show[ed] [Defendants'] intent to trade on" Plaintiff's popularity and the strength of Plaintiff's mark

  5. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  6. Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc.

    750 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 184 times
    Holding first sale doctrine inapplicable where equipment was sold and license/infringement issue concerned patent claiming method of using equipment

  7. 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"

  8. 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"

  9. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 75 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"

  10. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,837 times   329 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,911 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,608 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"

  14. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 148 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"