12 Cited authorities
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 191 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.
281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 34 timesHolding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”
J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.
932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 45 times 1 Legal AnalysesRuling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"
In re Shell Oil Co.
992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 35 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 13 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc.
9 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 10 timesNo. 93-1204. November 17, 1993. Howard P. Peck, Atty., Abelman, Frayne Schwab, New York City, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Julianne Abelman. Mark F. Harrington, Atty., Perman Green, Fairfield, CT, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before RICH, MAYER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) which both sustained and dismissed
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
Kalart Company, Inc. v. Camera-Mart, Inc.
258 F.2d 956 (C.C.P.A. 1958) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 6370. June 18, 1958. Rehearing Denied October 1, 1958. Frederick E. Hane, New York City (Hane Nydick and Abraham J. Nydick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Bernard J. Levy, New York City (Brower, Brill Gangel, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. A petition has been filed to cancel the registration of "Camart" for cameras, camera dollies and parts thereof, tripods and boom
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,611 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 1112 - Classification of goods and services; registration in plurality of classes
15 U.S.C. § 1112 Cited 25 times 1 Legal AnalysesAuthorizing classification scheme