§

Celestial Movie Channel Limited

No. 78721455 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2008)
Celestial Movie Channel Limited

11 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 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. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  4. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.

    902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

  5. 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

  6. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.

    648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    Finding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods

  7. Application of Burndy Corporation

    300 F.2d 938 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6736. April 11, 1962. Ernest Fanwick, Norwalk, Conn. (Robert I. Dennison, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge JOSEPH R. JACKSON, Retired. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the affirmance by the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the ex parte rejection of appellant's application to register a trademark on the Principal

  8. Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank & Supply Co.

    277 F.2d 192 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 11 times
    In Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank and Supply Co., 277 F.2d 192, 196, 47 CCPA 900, this court found likelihood of confusion between two marks on the basis of a similarity between the designs with which words were displayed. The word marks in that case ("Union" and "Columbian"), taken alone, were not in the least alike and certainly far less likely to cause confusion than the words involved in this appeal.

  9. Dere v. Institute for Scientific Information, Inc.

    420 F.2d 1068 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8233. January 29, 1970. John R. Dere, pro se. Seidel Gonda, Edward C. Gonda, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. John R. Dere, applicant below, appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the result of which is published at 153 USPQ 886, holding that contemporaneous use of appellant's mark, I.A.I., and opposer-appellee's mark, ISI, for

  10. Diamond Alkali Company v. Dundee Cement Co.

    343 F.2d 781 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7373. April 15, 1965. Boynton P. Livingston, Washington, D.C., (James L. Kurtz, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. L. Gaylord Hulbert, Detroit, Mich., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wherein the board dismissed the opposition of the appellant, Diamond Alkali Company, which opposition was instituted against an application of

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 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"