§

Food-Tek, Inc. v. Rhodia, Inc.

CANC (T.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 1999)
Food-Tek, Inc. v. Rhodia, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  3. Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

    640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 20 times
    Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context

  4. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,339 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  5. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,998 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  6. Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 32   Cited 2,380 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial

  7. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 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"

  8. Section 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter

    15 U.S.C. § 1056   Cited 69 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought

  9. Section 2.131 - Remand after decision in inter partes proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 2.131   Cited 1 times

    If, during an inter partes proceeding involving an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act, facts are disclosed which appear to render the mark unregistrable, but such matter has not been tried under the pleadings as filed by the parties or as they might be deemed to be amended under Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conform to the evidence, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in lieu of determining the matter in the decision on the proceeding, may remand the application