13 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.
281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 33 timesHolding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 timesHolding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America
970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 39 timesFinding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.
902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 21 timesAffirming 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."
Chapman v. Thomas
743 F.2d 1056 (4th Cir. 1984) Cited 5 timesIn Chapman v. Thomas, 743 F.2d 1056 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1866, 85 L.Ed.2d 160 (1985), we upheld North Carolina State University's ban of most, but not all, on-campus door to door solicitation.
Longini Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Ratcliff
108 F.2d 253 (C.C.P.A. 1939)Patent Appeal No. 4214. December 26, 1939. Appeal from Commissioner of Patents, T.M. Cancellation No. 3098. Proceeding by the Longini Shoe Manufacturing Company against Raymond R. Ratcliff, doing business as the Ratcliff Products Sales Company, for cancellation of a registered trade-mark. From the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, reversing the Examiner's decision sustaining the petition, petitioner appeals. Affirmed. Frank Zugelter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. Truman A. Herron and
Section 1057 - Certificates of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1057 Cited 1,043 times 5 Legal AnalysesProviding that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 917 times 50 Legal AnalysesAllowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 2.120 - Discovery
37 C.F.R. § 2.120 Cited 23 times 5 Legal AnalysesProviding that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"