§

Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Systems Pty Ltd.

No. 91194148 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2015)
Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Systems Pty Ltd.

36 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,480 times   229 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. United States Polo Ass'n v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.

    800 F. Supp. 2d 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that surveys showing 27.8%, 22.5%, and 17.8% net confusion rates were sufficient to prove actual confusion

  3. Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc.

    531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 307 times
    Holding that the defendants' suddenly changing the name of one of its own products to include the plaintiff's mark created confusion and defeated a laches defense even after the defendants had been distributing the plaintiff's products that were labeled with that mark for nineteen years

  4. Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston

    628 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 262 times
    Holding that two companies involved in car care had "a strong similarity between their wares and services" even though one sold car parts and the other did not

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

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  6. James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc.

    540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a confusion rate of 15% was evidence of more than de minimis confusion

  7. Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.

    698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's finding of secondary meaning was not clearly erroneous where Zatarain's sold 916,385 cases of Fish–Fri between 1964 and 1979

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  9. 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"

  10. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 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"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,300 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,878 times   262 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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 1141 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1141   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses

    In this subchapter: (1) Basic application The term "basic application" means the application for the registration of a mark that has been filed with an Office of a Contracting Party and that constitutes the basis for an application for the international registration of that mark. (2) Basic registration The term "basic registration" means the registration of a mark that has been granted by an Office of a Contracting Party and that constitutes the basis for an application for the international registration

  15. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 7 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"

  16. Section 1141g - Right of priority for request for extension of protection to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141g   20 Legal Analyses

    The holder of an international registration with a request for an extension of protection to the United States shall be entitled to claim a date of priority based on a right of priority within the meaning of Article 4 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property if- (1) the request for extension of protection contains a claim of priority; and (2) the date of international registration or the date of the recordal of the request for extension of protection to the United States