Anvil Knitwear, Inc. v. Success Ware, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 73 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"
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"
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America
970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 39 times
Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 12 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times
Affirming likelihood of confusion
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 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
Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co.
667 F.2d 1005 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 8 times
Appeal No. 81-559. December 10, 1981. Ronald L. Panitch and Roberta L. Jacobs, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Jay J. Rice, Clifton, N. D., for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board") dismissing the opposition of appellant Franklin Mint Corporation ("Franklin")
Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp.
558 F.2d 1019 (C.C.P.A. 1977) Cited 9 times
Patent Appeal No. 77-503. July 14, 1977. Frank P. Presta, Jacobi, Lilling Siegel, Arlington, Va., for the Wella Corp. Gary E. Lande, Poms, Smith, Lande Glenny, Los Angeles, Cal., for California Concept Corp. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. MILLER Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board"), 192 USPQ 158 (1976), dismissing appellant's opposition No. 55,727, filed June 6, 1974, against application No. 454,056, filed April 20, 1973, for
Rule 902 - Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
Fed. R. Evid. 902 Cited 2,199 times 35 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[p]rinted material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,597 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"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
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"

Anvil Knitwear, Inc. v. Success Ware, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

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

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"

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Affirming likelihood of confusion

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

Stating that "[p]rinted material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating

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"

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"