11 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.
932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 45 times 1 Legal AnalysesRuling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"
Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
227 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 23 times 1 Legal AnalysesVacating and remanding because the court could not "discern from the Board's brief discussion" whether the Board applied the wrong test
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.
951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 14 timesConcluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”
CBS Inc. v. Morrow
708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 timesIn CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.
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
J.C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.
340 F.2d 960 (C.C.P.A. 1965) Cited 26 timesPatent Appeal No. 7310. February 11, 1965. Albert H. Kirchner, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Robert D. Hovey, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. J.C. Hall Company filed application to register "HALLMARK" for blank checks issued in single and book form, alleging use since April 17, 1933. Registration has been opposed by Hallmark Cards, Incorporated, alleging prior and continuous use of the identical term "HALLMARK"
King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen
496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 95,193 times 92 Legal AnalysesFinding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint