§

Alliance Technical Services, Inc. v. Alliance Machine Systems Inter-national, Inc.

No. 91159099 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2006)
Alliance Technical Services, Inc. v. Alliance Machine Systems Inter-national, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Pignons S. A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp.

    657 F.2d 482 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 260 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no evidence of intent in a trademark infringement case

  2. Astra Pharmaceutical, v. Beckman Instruments

    718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 156 times
    Holding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  5. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  6. Continental Plast v. Owens Brockway Plast

    141 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 29 times
    Finding confusion "very unlikely" where the sales "are likely to be the culmination of long-term negotiations, direct communication between the parties, and ongoing contact"

  7. 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"

  8. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  9. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.

    902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

  10. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,911 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,768 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party