§

Beaute Prestige Int’l. v. OroAmeri-ca, Inc. and Aurafin-OroAmerica LLC

No. 91109130 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2002)
Beaute Prestige Int’l. v. OroAmeri-ca, Inc. and Aurafin-OroAmerica LLC

17 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. 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

  3. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 38 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  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. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  6. 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

  7. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent 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)

  8. Application of Calgon Corporation

    435 F.2d 596 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that a collateral attack on the validity and ownership of a registration without seeking formal cancellation proceedings is improper in an ex parte proceeding

  9. Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. Englander Co.

    324 F.2d 186 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7011. November 14, 1963. Rehearing Denied January 17, 1964. Kingsland, Rogers, Ezell Robbins, Estill E. Ezell, Edmund C. Rogers, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Olson, Trexler, Wolters Bushnell, Chicago, Ill. (Richard Bushnell, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This is an appeal by the opposer in a consolidated opposition and cancellation proceeding wherein the Patent Office Trademark Trial

  10. Cosmetically Yours, Inc. v. Clairol Inc.

    424 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8296. May 7, 1970. Myron Amer, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney of record, for appellant. H.C. Dieserud, New York City (Fish, Richardson Neave, New York City), for appellee; David J. Kera, New York City, of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ROSENSTEIN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. ROSENSTEIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustaining an opposition by Clairol Incorporated

  11. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,175 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  12. Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 32   Cited 2,315 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,580 times   260 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"

  14. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,024 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  15. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  16. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination