§

Demart Pro Arte, B.V. v. Mike Khemlani

No. 91092052 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2001)
Demart Pro Arte, B.V. v. Mike Khemlani

8 Cited authorities

  1. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding 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

  2. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  3. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

    748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

  4. Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises, Inc.

    889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that VITTORIO RICCI and NINA RICCI are similar

  5. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

    748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

  6. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  7. Wilson v. Delaunay

    245 F.2d 877 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 11 times
    In Wilson, the board similarly noted that, as between a company seeking to register "Newports" for women's shoes and a company selling outer shirts under the "Newport" brand, the singular form of Newport was materially indistinguishable under those circumstances.

  8. Goldring, Inc. v. Towncliffe, Inc.

    234 F.2d 265 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 6200, 6201. June 20, 1956. Henry L. Burkitt, New York City, for appellant. Howard A. Rosenberg, New York City (Wm. R. Liberman, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge, and COLE and JACKSON, retired, Judges. JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge. These are appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner, 102 U.S.P.Q. 405, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences which dismissed appellant's