§

Chef Sous LLC v. Heidi Webb, Inc.

No. 91215638 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)
Chef Sous LLC v. Heidi Webb, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

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

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 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"

  5. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  6. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 27 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"

  7. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  8. In re Mighty Leaf Tea

    601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

  9. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.

    685 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Declining to "infer from Nestle's failure to provide survey evidence that such evidence would be harmful"

  10. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,351 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 11,442 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,921 times   127 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 1,615 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"

  15. 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"

  16. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"