§

Bites of Boston Food Tours, LLC

No. 85397975 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013)
Bites of Boston Food Tours, LLC

8 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. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  6. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

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

  7. 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

  8. Magnaflux Corporation v. Sonoflux Corp.

    231 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6193. April 3, 1956. Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Chicago, Ill. (Carlton Hill, Chicago, Ill., and Wm. T. Estabrook, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Thomas O. Arnold, Houston, Tex. (Hutcheson, Taliaferro Hutcheson, Houston, Tex., of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY and JACKSON, retired, Judges. WORLEY, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner