§

Califon Productions, Inc. v. Bob Stupak

No. 91116967 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2004)
Califon Productions, Inc. v. Bob Stupak

17 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. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 56 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

  3. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  4. 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.

  5. 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"

  6. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  7. Hancock v. Am. Steel Wire Co. of N.J

    203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 30 times
    Holding infringer's use of "Tornado" on wire fencing carried identical meaning to protected user's "Cyclone"

  8. Smith Brothers Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co.

    476 F.2d 1004 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8947. April 19, 1973. George R. Douglas, Jr. (Misegades Douglas), Washington, D.C., attorneys of record for appellant; Sherman Levy, Washington, D.C., of counsel. B.P. Fishburne, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

  9. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Jones Engineering Co.

    292 F.2d 294 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6681. July 7, 1961. G.R. Harris, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Davidson C. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Carlton Hill, Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District 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

  10. Quaker Oats Co. v. St. Joe Processing Co.

    232 F.2d 653 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6204. April 18, 1956. Woodson, Pattishall Garner, William T. Woodson and Beverly W. Pattishall, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. No appearance or brief for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner, 102 USPQ 451, sustaining the decision of the Examiner of Interferences which dismissed appellant's notice

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,932 times   195 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,919 times   91 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

  13. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 28,407 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  14. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,749 times   256 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  15. Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 701   Cited 5,741 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

  16. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 887 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  17. Section 463.0152 - "Game" and "gambling game" defined

    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.0152

    1. "Game" or "gambling game" means any game played with cards, dice, equipment or any mechanical or electronic device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, faro, monte, roulette, keno, bingo, fan-tan, twenty-one, blackjack, seven-and-a-half, klondike, craps, poker, chuck-a-luck, wheel of fortune, chemin de fer, baccarat, pai gow, beat the banker, panguingui, slot machine, any banking or percentage