§

EuRex Inter-national, Inc. v. Pepin Mfg., Inc.

No. 91116333 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2004)
EuRex Inter-national, Inc. v. Pepin Mfg., Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A.

    979 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 194 times
    Holding that " few bottles sold over the counter ..., and a few more mailed to friends ..., neither link[ed] the ... mark with [plaintiff's] product in the minds of consumers nor put other producers on notice"

  2. Allard Enterprises v. Advanced Program

    146 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that the use of a mark in connection with employment recruiting activities was a use in commerce, even though it did not result in income, because it was understood that payment would occur if an employee was hired

  3. La Societe Anonyme des Parfums v. Jean Patou

    495 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that use of a trademark was not bona fide where its "real purpose" in making sales "was to establish and maintain rights in [its] trademark"

  4. Lucent Info. Management v. Lucent Technologies

    186 F.3d 311 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that, under the Lanham Act, filing an application for federal registration of a trademark confers priority in the mark except against a person who has used the mark prior to such filing

  5. 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"

  6. Fuji Photo Film v. Shinohara Shoji Kabushiki

    754 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1985)   Cited 127 times
    Holding general principles of trademark law compelled conclusion that admission into evidence of foreign trademark practices was error

  7. Natural Footwear v. Hart, Schaffner Marx

    760 F.2d 1383 (3d Cir. 1985)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that gross sales of less than $5,000 to fewer than 50 customers were below the minimum threshold for market penetration

  8. Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Mfg. Company, Inc.

    508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1975)   Cited 108 times
    Noting that a “single use in trade may sustain trademark rights if followed by continuous commercial utilization”

  9. Lucent Info. Manage. v. Lucent Tech.

    986 F. Supp. 253 (D. Del. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Granting summary judgment in favor of telecommunications provider in trademark action

  10. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.

    811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 42 times
    Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration