Anton/Bauer, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 194 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
In re Nett Designs, Inc.
236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 28 times
Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 times
No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Kimberly-Clark, v. H. Douglas Enterprises
774 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 15 times
Stating that trade dress associated with the mark of the opposed registration was irrelevant in distinguishing the mark because "such dress might well be changed at any time; only the word mark itself is to be registered"
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming likelihood of confusion
TBC Corp. v. Holsa, Inc.
126 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 3 times
No. 96-1140 DECIDED: October 9, 1997 Appealed from: Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. (Opposition No. 84,567) Marsha G. Gentner, Jacobson, Price, Holman Stern, P.L.L.C., of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was Leesa N. Weiss. William R. Golden, Jr., of Kelley Drye Warren, of New York, New York, argued for appellee. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RICH. Circuit Judge RADER dissents
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,616 times 275 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"

Anton/Bauer, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

In re Nett Designs, Inc.

Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

Kimberly-Clark, v. H. Douglas Enterprises

Stating that trade dress associated with the mark of the opposed registration was irrelevant in distinguishing the mark because "such dress might well be changed at any time; only the word mark itself is to be registered"

Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

Affirming likelihood of confusion

TBC Corp. v. Holsa, Inc.

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"