§

Binney & Smith Inc.

No. 78472642 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2006)
Binney & Smith Inc.

10 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding 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"

  3. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  4. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  5. 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

  6. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

    534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"

  7. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"

  8. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb, Inc.

    442 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8525. June 3, 1971. Paul L. Gomory, Washington, D.C., Jack E. Phillips, J. Arthur Young and Donald J. Quigg, Bartlesville, Okla., attorneys of record, for appellant. Edward C. Gonda, Arthur H. Seidel, Seidel, Gonda Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

  9. Chicago Pharmacal Co. v. Am. Home Prod

    280 F.2d 148 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6573. July 6, 1960. Brezina Buckingham, John Charles Brezina, Chicago, Ill. (John F. Brezina, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Mortimer Altin, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 United States Code. MARTIN,

  10. Medicated Products Co. v. Alice Jewelry Co.

    255 F.2d 408 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6363. May 23, 1958. James R. McKnight, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Elliot A. Salter, Providence, R.I., for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY and RICH, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents dismissing an opposition to application serial No. 666,326 to register the mark "The Bridal Pair" for earrings, necklaces, keyrings, bracelets, and anklets made wholly or in part of precious metal, by the owner of registration