§

Hanks Clothing

No. 85250252 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2013)
Hanks Clothing

14 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. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. In re Omega

    494 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that “[i]t is within the discretion of the PTO to require that one's goods be identified with particularity” in a trademark application

  6. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

  7. 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

  8. Mr. Hero Sandwich Systems, Inc. v. Roman Meal Co.

    781 F.2d 884 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    Appeal No. 85-2031. January 10, 1986. Linn J. Raney of Watts, Hoffmann, Fisher Heinke, Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. Edward M. Prince of Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before BALDWIN, KASHIWA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. BALDWIN, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)

  9. Application of Bissett-Berman Corporation

    476 F.2d 640 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that self-serving testimony of appellant's corporate president's unawareness of instances of actual confusion was not conclusive that actual confusion did not exist or that there was no likelihood of confusion

  10. Wilson v. Delaunay

    245 F.2d 877 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 11 times
    In Wilson, the board similarly noted that, as between a company seeking to register "Newports" for women's shoes and a company selling outer shirts under the "Newport" brand, the singular form of Newport was materially indistinguishable under those circumstances.

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,940 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  14. Section 2.32 - Requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application

    37 C.F.R. § 2.32   Cited 8 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating that registrants must submit an English translation of any non-English wording and "[i]f the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration of those characters, and either a translation of the transliterated term in English, or a statement that the transliterated term has no meaning in English"