§

Clinique Laboratories LLC v. Absolute Dental, LLC

No. 91181263 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2011)
Clinique Laboratories LLC v. Absolute Dental, LLC

28 Cited authorities

  1. Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Limited

    155 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 247 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must consider application of digits in light of comparative advertising claim

  2. Indianapolis Colts v. Metro. Baltimore Football

    34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 234 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that infringement of Colts trademark was expressly aimed at Indiana where trademark holder and bulk of confused fans were located

  3. Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc.

    531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 309 times
    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

  4. James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc.

    540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a confusion rate of 15% was evidence of more than de minimis confusion

  5. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    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."

  6. Grotrian, Helfferich v. Steinway Sons

    523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 196 times
    Holding that “Steinway The Instrument of Immortals” was a properly “registered slogan” notwithstanding the fact that Steinway itself was also a protected mark

  7. 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"

  8. 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"

  9. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications

    28 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 97 times
    Finding that the district court's consideration of First Amendment concerns in its likelihood-of-confusion analysis caused it to hold the plaintiff to a higher standard than required to prove trademark infringement

  10. 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"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,951 times   330 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,923 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 times   275 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"