Selox v. Fausek

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

In re Nat. Data Corp.

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

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

Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

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

Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"

Wincharger Corporation v. Rinco, Inc.

In Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962), for example, which concerned the sophistication of technicians in the field of electrical devices, the court stated that while technicians are "a discriminating group of people [b]eing skilled in their own art does not necessarily preclude their mistaking one trademark for another...."

Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller

Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"