§

Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Thomas D. Elsea

No. 91093436 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 1998)
Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Thomas D. Elsea

16 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. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  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. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  5. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 38 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  6. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  7. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

    748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

  8. Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises, Inc.

    889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that VITTORIO RICCI and NINA RICCI are similar

  9. Hard Rock Licensing v. Pacific Graphics

    776 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D. Wash. 1991)   Cited 11 times
    In Hard Rock Cafe, the court explicitly found the case before it "different from those cases in which courts have found that the junior user's mark is a true parody."

  10. Kimberly-Clark, v. H. Douglas Enterprises

    774 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that trade dress associated with the mark of the opposed registration was irrelevant in distinguishing the mark because "such dress might well be changed at any time; only the word mark itself is to be registered"

  11. Rule 902 - Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

    Fed. R. Evid. 902   Cited 2,135 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[p]rinted material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating

  12. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  13. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination