§

Atico Int’l. USA Inc.

No. 76323759 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2003)
Atico Int’l. USA Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  3. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  4. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  5. 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

  6. Stock Pot Restaurant, Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc.

    737 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 33 times
    In Stock Pot, the appellee was a dissolved Massachusetts corporation at the time it filed suit and therefore did not have capacity to sue under Massachusetts law.

  7. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

    748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"

  12. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty