§

Healthy’s, Inc.

No. 75380362 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2001)
Healthy’s, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Selox v. Fausek

    506 U.S. 1034 (1992)   Cited 32 times

    No. 92-708. December 14, 1992. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 965 F. 2d 126.

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

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

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  4. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  5. 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

  6. Hancock v. Am. Steel Wire Co. of N.J

    203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 30 times
    Holding infringer's use of "Tornado" on wire fencing carried identical meaning to protected user's "Cyclone"

  7. Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co.

    223 F.2d 485 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 10 times
    In Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co., 223 F.2d 485, 487, 42 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1001, the involved marks were "Railbird" and "Game Bird," and the Assistant Commissioner had held that "`* * * the marks of both parties are apparently always used in conjunction with the more familiar and better known trade-marks "Dobbs" (opposer's) and "Stetson" and device (applicant's), thereby eliminating likelihood that purchasers would be confused, misled or deceived into believing that the hats so marked emanate from the same source; * * *."

  8. Burton-Dixie Corporation v. Restonic Corp.

    234 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding that "necessary" assumption that mark will continue to be used in conjunction with primary mark "could be justified only if each party had no legal right to use his registered mark by itself"

  9. Sealy, Incorporated v. Simmons Company

    265 F.2d 934 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6420. April 22, 1959. Gerrit P. Groen, Wm. Marshall Lee, and Byron, Hume, Groen Clement, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Cyril A. Soans, William E. Anderson, and Soans, Anderson, Luedeka Fitch, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Acting C.J., and RICH, MARTIN and JOHNSON (retired), JJ. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the Assistant Commissioner, reversing the Examiner of Interferences and dismissing an opposition

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 times   274 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"