§

Cards Against Humanity, LLC v. Vampire Squid Cards, LLC

No. 91225576 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)
Cards Against Humanity, LLC v. Vampire Squid Cards, LLC

26 Cited authorities

  1. Starbucks v. Wolfe's Borough

    588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1125 claim requires same showing under Polaroid factors

  2. Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity

    507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 118 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys not to infringe on the venerable handbag maker's trademark

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

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  4. Petro Stopping Cen. v. James River Petroleum

    130 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that PETRO STOPPING CENTER and JAMES RIVER PETRO CARD were dissimilar in sight and appearance

  5. Coach House Rest. v. Coach and Six Rest

    934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that a likelihood of confusion furnishes one ground for cancelling a registration

  6. 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"

  7. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 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"

  8. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 24 times
    Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

  9. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  10. In re I.Am.Symbolic, LLC

    866 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that the similarity of the marks weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion

  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,273 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,375 times   321 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"

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  15. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 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"