12 Cited authorities
Astra Pharmaceutical, v. Beckman Instruments
718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983) Cited 153 timesHolding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Worthington Foods, Inc. v. Kellogg Co.
732 F. Supp. 1417 (S.D. Ohio 1990) Cited 98 timesHolding the presence of a word to be the dominant part of a composite mark consisting of a heart-shaped design and the word HEARTWISE, because "it is the word segment which conveys the suggestion of healthiness which the plaintiff intends. The heart-shaped design merely augments the message conveyed by the word."
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys
954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 28 timesHolding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"
B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design
846 F.2d 727 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 22 timesRelying on fourteen registrations issued between 1906 to 1983 and stating that dictionaries defined "B.V.D." as a trademark used for underwear
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing
473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 15 timesPatent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged
Kalart Company, Inc. v. Camera-Mart, Inc.
258 F.2d 956 (C.C.P.A. 1958) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 6370. June 18, 1958. Rehearing Denied October 1, 1958. Frederick E. Hane, New York City (Hane Nydick and Abraham J. Nydick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Bernard J. Levy, New York City (Brower, Brill Gangel, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. A petition has been filed to cancel the registration of "Camart" for cameras, camera dollies and parts thereof, tripods and boom
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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 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 AnalysesRequiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"