§

Bose Corporation v. Tofasco of America, Inc.

No. 91176670 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2011)
Bose Corporation v. Tofasco of America, Inc.

17 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. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  4. 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"

  5. Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises, Inc.

    889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that VITTORIO RICCI and NINA RICCI are similar

  6. Kangol Ltd. v. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc.

    974 F.2d 161 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times

    No. 92-1059. August 31, 1992. James M. Wetzel, Chicago, Ill., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joanne M. Dennison, Chicago, Ill. Paul M. Denk, St. Louis, Mo., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. Kangol Limited (Kangol) appeals from the August 21, 1991, decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustaining KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc.'s (Kangaroos) Opposition No. 80,228. Kangaroos

  7. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  8. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

    748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

  9. Kimberly-Clark, v. H. Douglas Enterprises

    774 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that trade dress associated with the mark of the opposed registration was irrelevant in distinguishing the mark because "such dress might well be changed at any time; only the word mark itself is to be registered"

  10. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,035 times   94 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  13. Section 2.133 - Amendment of application or registration during proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.133   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application subject to an opposition may not be amended in substance nor may a registration subject to a cancellation be amended or disclaimed in part, except with the consent of the other party or parties and the approval of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or upon motion granted by the Board. (b) If, in an inter partes proceeding, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board finds that a party whose application or registration is the subject of the proceeding is not entitled to registration