§

American Automobile Association, Inc.

88371115 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)
American Automobile Association, Inc.

31 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 2,018 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 803 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

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

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 262 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  4. Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 820 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  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. 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"

  7. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 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"

  8. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC

    794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 29 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"

  9. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

  10. 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"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,921 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,615 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"

  13. Section 1055 - Use by related companies affecting validity and registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1055   Cited 152 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the benefit of licensee's "first use" of a mark inures to a licensor only if the licensor "control ... the nature and quality of the goods"