Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd.

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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"
  2. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion
  3. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"
  4. Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller

    477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion
  5. MYRURGIA v. COMPTOIR DE LA PARFUMERIE, ETC

    441 F.2d 673 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8401. May 13, 1971. Alex Friedman, Martin J. Beran, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. Russell L. Law, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. Appeal is taken from the decision of The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing the opposition filed by appellant, Myrurgia, S.A., to registration of the trademark "SENORITA" for cologne, toilet

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 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"