Facebook, Inc. v. Think Computer Corporation

23 Cited authorities

Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.
833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 163 times
Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
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"
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"
Recot, Inc. v. Becton
214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 56 times
Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration
Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice
710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 86 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
U.S. v. Medina-Martinez
396 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) Cited 36 times 1 Legal Analyses
In LaLonde v. Textron, 396 F.3d 1 (2004), the First Circuit held that a precipitous drop in the price of an employer's stock plus concealment of adverse information from shareholders was sufficient to show an abuse of discretion under Moench.
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"
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 70 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.
293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 34 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.
Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries
963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 49 times
Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks
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
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"

Facebook, Inc. v. Think Computer Corporation

23 Cited authorities

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

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"

Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

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

In LaLonde v. Textron, 396 F.3d 1 (2004), the First Circuit held that a precipitous drop in the price of an employer's stock plus concealment of adverse information from shareholders was sufficient to show an abuse of discretion under Moench.

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"

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

In Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.

Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

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"