18 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 193 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries
963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 51 timesHolding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks
Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys
954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 28 timesHolding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"
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
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 13 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Swatch Watch, S.A. v. Taxor, Inc.
785 F.2d 956 (11th Cir. 1986) Cited 21 timesNo. 85-5989. April 2, 1986. Jonathan D. Wallace, Meatto, Russo, Burke Wallace, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants. Edward F. McHale, Malin Haley McHale, P.A., Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before JOHNSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and ALAIMO, District Judge. Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
In re Dr Pepper Co.
836 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 19 timesHolding that a contest promoting one's own goods is not an independent service
Martahus v. Video Duplication Services, Inc.
3 F.3d 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 13 timesAffirming cancellation of service mark where party seeking cancellation provided sales invoices, draft contract, and testimony demonstrating prior use of mark in dealings with customers and the relevant public on specific dates
In re Hearst Corp.
982 F.2d 493 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 11 timesFinding presence of term GIRL in VARGA GIRL sufficient to distinguish from VARGAS for identical goods
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 96,382 times 95 Legal AnalysesFinding 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
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,937 times 330 Legal AnalysesHolding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 934 times 51 Legal AnalysesAllowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services