Bayco Products, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 193 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.
308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 47 times
Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 26 times
Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group
637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 27 times 3 Legal Analyses
Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
In re I.Am.Symbolic, LLC
866 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 18 times
Finding that the similarity of the marks weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion
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
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.
281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 34 times
Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”
In re Chatam International Inc.
380 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 24 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted
In re Guild Mortg. Co.
No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019) Cited 8 times 1 Legal Analyses
Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,921 times 127 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,615 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"

Bayco Products, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Finding that the similarity of the marks weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion

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

Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted

Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"