§

Harlow – HRK Sales & Marketing, Inc.

No. 85937185 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2015)
Harlow – HRK Sales & Marketing, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  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. Kalart Company, Inc. v. Camera-Mart, Inc.

    258 F.2d 956 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 2 times

    Patent 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

  9. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"