§

Celanese International Corporation v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

No. 91166550 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2008)
Celanese International Corporation v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

11 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. 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"

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  4. Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.

    236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times
    Finding no error because, "while the Board did not make explicit findings about the strength of the [opposer’s mark], the Board’s opinion reveals that the Board considered this factor"

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  7. 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

  8. Massey Junior Col. v. Fas. Inst. of Tech

    492 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that conflicting marks need to be analyzed in their entirety even when sharing a prominent feature

  9. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  10. 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"