§

Blue Nile, Inc. v. Brent Neale LLC

91239053 (T.T.A.B. May. 7, 2020)
Blue Nile, Inc. v. Brent Neale LLC

51 Cited authorities

  1. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 259 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  2. Abercrombie Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.

    537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 819 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "Safari" is generic for the articles of clothing that comprise the "Safari suit" outfit

  3. I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co.

    163 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 193 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a mark nationally renowned in "the world of interior design and high-end bathroom fixtures" was not sufficiently famous

  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  5. 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"

  6. 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"

  7. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  8. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  9. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  10. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,916 times   330 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,920 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,612 times   274 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"