§

First Niagara Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.

No. 91122450 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2007)
First Niagara Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Lang v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., Inc.

    949 F.2d 576 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 640 times
    Holding that evidence of "actual confusion" in which the public thought the senior user was the origin of the junior user's products was irrelevant for a reverse confusion claim

  2. 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"

  3. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 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"

  4. 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"

  5. 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"

  6. Nautilus Group v. Icon Health and Fitness

    372 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that the district court's finding of "actual confusion" was improper where "the relatively small number of calls presented by Nautilus renders this evidence too unreliable"

  7. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  8. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  9. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  10. First Niagara Ins. v. First Niagara Fin

    476 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting a foreign user to oppose a trademark application based solely on use, as opposed to use in commerce, of a mark in the United States