§

Beiersdorf Aktiengesellschaft v. Southwest Technologies, Inc.

No. 91095031 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 1998)
Beiersdorf Aktiengesellschaft v. Southwest Technologies, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Nutri/System, Inc. v. Con-Stan Industries, Inc.

    809 F.2d 601 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly found that trivial instances of actual confusion were de minimis

  2. Henri's Food Products Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc.

    717 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that "Yogowhip" and "Miracle Whip" are dissimilar because they look and sound different and because of the differences in the product labels

  3. McDonald's Corp. v. McBagel's, Inc.

    649 F. Supp. 1268 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)   Cited 56 times
    Finding that McDonald's trademarks were a family of marks because of notable advertisements, sales, articles, media attention, and consumer surveys supporting that the Mc- prefix had developed secondary meaning as a formative

  4. Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products

    866 F.2d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 45 times
    Finding that as a preliminary to comparing the marks in their entireties it is not improper to give less weight to the generic "pecan" part of the marks in finding no likely confusion in: PECAN SANDIES pecan cookies vs. PECAN SHORTEES pecan cookies

  5. 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"

  6. In re Bed & Breakfast Registry

    791 F.2d 157 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 24 times

    Appeal No. 85-2418. May 20, 1986. Mark E. Singer, Winnetka, Ill., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Trademark Examining Atty., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief, were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration on the Principal Register of the service

  7. Roederer v. Delicato Vineyards

    148 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that one factor can be dispositive

  8. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

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

  9. In re Sarkli, Ltd.

    721 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 83-983. November 18, 1983. Arnold Sprung, New York City, argued, for appellant. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and John W. Newhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Serial No. 266643. Before FRIEDMAN, SMITH and NIES, Circuit Judges. NIES, Circuit Judge. The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

  10. Ultracashmere House, Ltd. v. Spring Mills

    828 F.2d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    No. 87-1129. September 23, 1987. Michael J. Niles, Pittstown, N.J., for appellant. Allen Zelnick, Weiss, Dawid, Fross, Zelnick Lehrman, P.C., New York City, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, NIES and ARCHER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Circuit Judge. Ultracashmere House, Ltd. (UHL) appeals from the final decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in Opposition No. 62,670 dated April 10, 1986 (unreported)

  11. Section 801.1 - Medical devices; name and place of business of manufacturer, packer or distributor

    21 C.F.R. § 801.1   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The label of a device in package form shall specify conspicuously the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. (b) The requirement for declaration of the name of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor shall be deemed to be satisfied, in the case of a corporation, only by the actual corporate name which may be preceded or followed by the name of the particular division of the corporation. Abbreviations for "Company," "Incorporated," etc., may be used and "The"