§

Amadeus Marketing, S.A. v. Amadeus Salon, Inc.

No. 91151180 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2004)
Amadeus Marketing, S.A. v. Amadeus Salon, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. 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"

  3. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp.

    931 F.2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    No. 91-1011. May 2, 1991. Don B. Finkelstein, Ladas Parry, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellant. Allen J. Baden and Jonathan D. Reichman, Kenyon Kenyon, of New York City, argued, for appellee. With them on the brief, was William T. Boland, Jr. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Hewlett-Packard Company appeals from the final decision of the United States Patent

  4. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 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

  5. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  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.