§

Citrus Club by Dewberry 334 Meeting Street, LLC et, LLC

87860519 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020)
Citrus Club by Dewberry 334 Meeting Street, LLC et, LLC

14 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 194 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. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  6. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

  7. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  8. In re Guild Mortg. Co.

    No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"

  9. Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co.

    908 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 4 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2018-1152 11-15-2018 OMAHA STEAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. GREATER OMAHA PACKING CO., INC., Appellee Nora Marie Kane, Omaha Steaks International, Inc., Omaha, NE, argued for appellant. I. Stephen Samuels, Samuels & Hiebert, LLC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Prost, Chief Judge. Nora Marie Kane, Omaha Steaks International, Inc., Omaha, NE, argued for appellant. I. Stephen Samuels, Samuels & Hiebert, LLC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Before Prost, Chief Judge, O’Malley and Stoll, Circuit

  10. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 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

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,922 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark