§

Captaris, Inc. v. Captara Corporation

No. 91166054 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2007)
Captaris, Inc. v. Captara Corporation

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 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. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 83 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  4. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

    293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

  5. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 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

  6. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  7. Application of Clorox Co.

    578 F.2d 305 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 77-628. June 30, 1978. Stephen M. Westbrook, San Francisco, Cal. (Phillips, Moore, Weissenberger, Lempio Majestic, San Francisco, Cal.), attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)

  8. Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products

    341 F.2d 127 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7281. February 11, 1965. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, New York City (Arnold Sprung, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Robert C. Williams, D.D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Powermatics appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarding priority to Globe, senior party, in a trademark interference between Globe's Registration No. 704,179 for "PANELUME"

  9. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

  10. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 11,443 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,615 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"

  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"