§

General Mills, Inc. and General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC v. Fage Dairy Processing Industry S.A.

No. 91182937 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2011)
General Mills, Inc. and General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC v. Fage Dairy Processing Industry S.A.

38 Cited authorities

  1. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.

    626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 403 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court "was not obligated to provide additional guidance to the jury" beyond directing the jury to apply the "ordinary meaning" of a claim term

  2. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

    439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 272 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding arguments insufficiently developed in briefing are forfeited

  3. General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co.

    824 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1987)   Cited 206 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not err in finding no confusing similarity between "Oatmeal Raisin Crisp" and "Apple Raisin Crisp" because the marks were different enough to avoid customer confusion

  4. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 90 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description

  5. 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"

  6. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  7. Worthington Foods, Inc. v. Kellogg Co.

    732 F. Supp. 1417 (S.D. Ohio 1990)   Cited 96 times
    Holding the presence of a word to be the dominant part of a composite mark consisting of a heart-shaped design and the word HEARTWISE, because "it is the word segment which conveys the suggestion of healthiness which the plaintiff intends. The heart-shaped design merely augments the message conveyed by the word."

  8. 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

  9. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  10. 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"

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,713 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,949 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  13. Rule 1006 - Summaries to Prove Content

    Fed. R. Evid. 1006   Cited 1,746 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a "summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court."

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,582 times   267 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"

  15. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,025 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark