Farm Fleet Supplies, Inc. v. Blain Supply Inc.

22 Cited authorities

Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,295 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 73 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"
Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.
28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 73 times 2 Legal Analyses
Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998
In re Int'l Flavors Fragrances Inc.
183 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 60 times 4 Legal Analyses
Noting that "[t]he federal registration of a trademark does not create an exclusive property right in the mark."
L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.
192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 52 times
Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive
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"
Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum
586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 28 times
Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing
In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”
In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 58 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services
In re Steelbuilding.com
415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 26 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 times 274 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"

Farm Fleet Supplies, Inc. v. Blain Supply Inc.

22 Cited authorities

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

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"

Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

Noting that "[t]he federal registration of a trademark does not create an exclusive property right in the mark."

Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

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 registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

Affirming the refusal of the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark STEELBUILDING.COM, because the mark was descriptive of online services for the design of steel buildings, and lacked secondary meaning

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"