ยง

Collegetown Relocation, LLC v. Garan Services Corp.

No. 91122058 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2004)
Collegetown Relocation, LLC v. Garan Services Corp.

21 Cited authorities

  1. La Societe Anonyme des Parfums v. Jean Patou

    495 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that use of a trademark was not bona fide where its "real purpose" in making sales "was to establish and maintain rights in [its] trademark"

  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. Charles of the Ritz v. Quality King Distrib

    832 F.2d 1317 (2d Cir. 1987)   Cited 93 times
    Upholding injunction against commercial slogan on ground that slogan created a likelihood of confusion and is therefore "beyond the protective reach of the First Amendment"

  4. Nautilus Group v. Icon Health and Fitness

    372 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that the district court's finding of "actual confusion" was improper where "the relatively small number of calls presented by Nautilus renders this evidence too unreliable"

  5. T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac

    77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services

  6. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  7. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  8. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

  9. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

    994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times
    Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

  10. Dan Robbins Associates v. Questor Corp.

    599 F.2d 1009 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 27 times
    Involving cancellation for likelihood of confusion

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,382 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. ยง 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