§

Edgecraft Corporation v. Smith’s Consumer Products, Inc.

No. 92054092 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2013)
Edgecraft Corporation v. Smith’s Consumer Products, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp.

    111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 204 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly admitted statements regarding consumer confusion because they were not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted and were offered to show the state of mind of the declarant

  2. Morningside Group v. Morningside Capital Group

    182 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 191 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Morningside" is an arbitrary mark as applied to financial investment services

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 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"

  5. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 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"

  6. Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France

    245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge

  7. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  8. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  9. Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.

    971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 26 times
    Stating that “a laches or estoppel defense in an opposition (or cancellation) proceeding may be based upon the Opposer's failure to object to an Applicant's registration of substantially the same mark ”

  10. Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.

    439 F. Supp. 1128 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)   Cited 30 times
    Finding no evidence to support the claims that a small, service-oriented business would develop the sophisticated and highly expensive manufacturing capacity necessary to produce computers and thus bridge the gap

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  12. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,027 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  13. Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings

    15 U.S.C. § 1069   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"

  14. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  15. Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.128   Cited 3 times
    Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB

  16. Section 2.196 - Times for taking action: Expiration on Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday

    37 C.F.R. § 2.196

    Whenever periods of time are specified in this part in days, calendar days are intended. When the day, or the last day fixed by statute or by regulation under this part for taking any action or paying any fee in the Office falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action may be taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday. 37 C.F.R. §2.196 Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed