§

AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. MS Motorsports, LLC (dba Motozone)

No. 91198031 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)
AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. MS Motorsports, LLC (dba Motozone)

25 Cited authorities

  1. Permanent v. Lasting

    543 U.S. 111 (2004)   Cited 335 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding defense available even where likelihood of confusion established

  2. American Needle v. National Football League

    560 U.S. 183 (2010)   Cited 262 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreement among the NFL and its member teams to create an entity that jointly licensed their separately owned intellectual property constituted concerted action in violation of the Sherman Act

  3. Chicago Board of Trade v. United States

    246 U.S. 231 (1918)   Cited 746 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that because every agreement involving trade is a restraint on trade in some form, the proper inquiry is whether the restraint suppresses or destroys competition

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  5. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  6. 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

  7. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  8. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  9. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

    293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

  10. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 365,001 times   966 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 52,413 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  13. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,872 times   329 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  14. Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 4,489 times   31 Legal Analyses
    In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 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"

  16. Section 2.101 - Filing an opposition

    37 C.F.R. § 2.101   Cited 4 times   11 Legal Analyses

    (a) An opposition proceeding is commenced by filing in the Office a timely notice of opposition with the required fee. (b) Any person who believes that he, she or it would be damaged by the registration of a mark on the Principal Register may file an opposition addressed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The opposition need not be verified, but must be signed by the opposer or the opposer's attorney, as specified in § 11.1 of this chapter, or other authorized representative, as specified in