International Star Cl. Yacht v. Tommy Hilfiger

Holding that it was defendant's burden to prove any deduction for sales not based on the infringing mark as opposed to defendant's own well-known mark and reputation

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

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"

On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

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"

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

Recot, Inc. v. Becton

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

Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

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

Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

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

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

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

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Rule 902 - Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

Allowing authentication of domestic records of regularly conducted activity "by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person"

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"

Section 3 - Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony

Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

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”

Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"