Bentley Motors Ltd.

7 Cited authorities

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"
In re Mighty Leaf Tea
601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form
Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
227 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 22 times 1 Legal Analyses
Vacating and remanding because the court could not "discern from the Board's brief discussion" whether the Board applied the wrong test
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.
951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 14 times
Concluding 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”
Kalart Company, Inc. v. Camera-Mart, Inc.
258 F.2d 956 (C.C.P.A. 1958) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 6370. June 18, 1958. Rehearing Denied October 1, 1958. Frederick E. Hane, New York City (Hane Nydick and Abraham J. Nydick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Bernard J. Levy, New York City (Brower, Brill Gangel, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. A petition has been filed to cancel the registration of "Camart" for cameras, camera dollies and parts thereof, tripods and boom
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 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"

Bentley Motors Ltd.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

In re Mighty Leaf Tea

Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Vacating and remanding because the court could not "discern from the Board's brief discussion" whether the Board applied the wrong test

In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

Concluding 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”

Kalart Company, Inc. v. Camera-Mart, Inc.

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"