§

Earlybird-capital, Inc.

No. 77830022 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2012)
Earlybird-capital, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. 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"

  3. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times
    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

  4. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  5. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.

    281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

  6. Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.

    236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times
    Finding no error because, "while the Board did not make explicit findings about the strength of the [opposer’s mark], the Board’s opinion reveals that the Board considered this factor"

  7. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  8. 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

  9. In re Research and Trading Corp.

    793 F.2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Appeal No. 86-705. June 12, 1986. Peter J. Georges, of Russell, Georges, Brenenman, Hellwege Yee, Arlington, Va., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, of the Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for Com'r of Patents and Trademarks. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor and Julie Seyler, Trademark Examining Atty. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge

  10. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"