Starbucks v. Wolfe's Borough

Holding that § 1125 claim requires same showing under Polaroid factors

Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc.

Holding that the defendants' suddenly changing the name of one of its own products to include the plaintiff's mark created confusion and defeated a laches defense even after the defendants had been distributing the plaintiff's products that were labeled with that mark for nineteen years

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

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"

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

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"

Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

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

In re Viterra Inc.

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"

Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"

Rule 1002 - Requirement of the Original

Stating that "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required"

Rule 1004 - Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content

Allowing other evidence of an original if the original is lost or destroyed or can't be obtained by judicial process

Section 2.120 - Discovery

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

Section 2.125 - Filing and service of testimony