17 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria
892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 50 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.
994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 21 timesGiving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act
Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.
902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 21 timesAffirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."
In re Hearst Corp.
982 F.2d 493 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 11 timesFinding presence of term GIRL in VARGA GIRL sufficient to distinguish from VARGAS for identical goods
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times 1 Legal AnalysesAffirming likelihood of confusion
In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.
837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 11 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"
King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen
496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 363,155 times 962 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,244 times 337 Legal AnalysesRequiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 2.120 - Discovery
37 C.F.R. § 2.120 Cited 23 times 5 Legal AnalysesProviding that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"