§

Gibson Guitar Corp. v. First Act, Incorporated

No. 91163660 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2009)
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. First Act, Incorporated

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. 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"

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

    994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times
    Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

  8. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  9. 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

  10. New England Fish Company v. Hervin Company

    511 F.2d 562 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-549. February 27, 1975. William P. Cole, Philadelphia, Pa. (Synnestvedt Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa.) attorneys of record, for appellant. Jacob E. Vilhauer, Jr., Portland, Ore., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. New England Fish Company, owner of the mark KITTY for cat food, appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing