§

Flageoli, Ltd. v. Mayron

No. 92032495 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2004)
Flageoli, Ltd. v. Mayron

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  3. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

    748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

  4. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp.

    931 F.2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    No. 91-1011. May 2, 1991. Don B. Finkelstein, Ladas Parry, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellant. Allen J. Baden and Jonathan D. Reichman, Kenyon Kenyon, of New York City, argued, for appellee. With them on the brief, was William T. Boland, Jr. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Hewlett-Packard Company appeals from the final decision of the United States Patent

  5. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating 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

  6. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 52,439 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  7. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,876 times   329 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  8. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 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"