11 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
In re Shell Oil Co.
992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 35 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”
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
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.
697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 12 timesRejecting 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 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 9 timesFinding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods
Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing
473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 15 timesPatent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged
Coca-Cola, Etc. v. Joseph E. Seagram Sons
526 F.2d 556 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 75-594. December 11, 1975. James H. Littlepage, Littlepage, Quaintance, Murphy Dobyns, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Edward J. Handler, III, Kenyon Kenyon Reilly Carr Chapin, New York City, attorney of record, for appellee; Ernest R. Brendel, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark
Wilson v. Delaunay
245 F.2d 877 (C.C.P.A. 1957) Cited 11 timesIn Wilson, the board similarly noted that, as between a company seeking to register "Newports" for women's shoes and a company selling outer shirts under the "Newport" brand, the singular form of Newport was materially indistinguishable under those circumstances.
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"