Drive Headwear, LLC

9 Cited authorities

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"
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
CBS Inc. v. Morrow
708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 times
In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.
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"
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.
697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 12 times
Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 17 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
General Shoe Corp. v. Hollywood-Maxwell Co.
277 F.2d 169 (C.C.P.A. 1960) Cited 5 times
Patent Appeal No. 6469. April 12, 1960. Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers McClatchey, Atlanta, Ga. (Ernest P. Rogers, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel), for appellant. John Flam, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and JOHNSON, retired, Associate Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Appellant owns and is the prior user of the trademark "Ingenue" on shoes and hosiery. Appellee seeks registration of the identical mark for use on brassieres. The Commissioner, through
Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody
286 F.2d 623 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 6628. February 8, 1961. Jacobi Jacobi, Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D.C. (Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Myron Amer, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code.
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"

Drive Headwear, LLC

9 Cited authorities

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

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

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"

Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

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

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"