§

Boi Na Braza, LLC v. Terra Sul Corporation a/k/a/ Churrascaria Boi Na Brasa

No. 94002525 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)
Boi Na Braza, LLC v. Terra Sul Corporation a/k/a/ Churrascaria Boi Na Brasa

16 Cited authorities

  1. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions

    406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 753 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a single retailer and a single customer insufficient to establish likelihood of confusion based on actual confusion

  2. Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurant

    360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 230 times
    Affirming denial of a preliminary injunction

  3. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  4. Spartan Food Systems, Inc. v. HFS Corp.

    813 F.2d 1279 (4th Cir. 1987)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the Lanham Act creates a limited preemption of state law where the two directly conflict

  5. Weiner King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.

    615 F.2d 512 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the unregistered company did not infringe on the registered company's rights when the unregistered company started using the mark first, was in a completely different geographical area, and had no plans to expand

  6. In re Beatrice Foods Co.

    429 F.2d 466 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 49 times
    In Beatrice Foods, our predecessor court held that "[o]nce there has been a determination that both parties are entitled to a federal registration, the extent to which those registrations are to be restricted territorially must... be governed by the statutory standard of likelihood of confusion."

  7. G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes, Ltd.

    917 F.2d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that a determination of secondary meaning is a question of fact which is reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard

  8. Action Temporary Services v. Labor Force

    870 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 88-1446. March 23, 1989. J. Rodman Steele, Steele, Gould Fried, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory A. Nelson. Jonathan E. Jobe, Jr., Hubbard, Thurman, Turner Tucker, Dallas, Tex., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Molly Buck Richard. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this concurrent use proceeding, the

  9. Gray v. Daffy Dan's Bargaintown

    823 F.2d 522 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1508. July 2, 1987. Mark Kusner, Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was D. Peter Hochberg. Roy H. Wepner, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz Mentlik, Westfield, N.J., argued for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. NIES, Circuit Judge. Daniel R. Gray appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark

  10. Amalgamated Bank, N.Y. v. Amalgamated Trust

    842 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    No. 87-1526. March 23, 1988. Donald A. Kaul of Brownstein, Zeidman and Schomer, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant. Robert W. Sacoff of Pattishall, McAuliffe Hofstetter, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee Amalgamated Trust. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee PTO. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., and Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol. Appeal from the Trademark and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,582 times   264 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"

  12. Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions

    15 U.S.C. § 1065   Cited 1,105 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing the requirements for incontestability

  13. Section 2.99 - Application to register as concurrent user

    37 C.F.R. § 2.99   Cited 5 times

    (a) An application for registration as a lawful concurrent user will be examined in the same manner as other applications for registration. (b) If it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the mark registered, subject to a concurrent use proceeding, the mark will be published in the Official Gazette as provided by § 2.80 . (c) If no opposition is filed, or if all oppositions that are filed are dismissed or withdrawn, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will send a notice of institution to