§

Holmquist v. Synergy Rehabilitation, Inc.

OPP (T.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 1999)
Holmquist v. Synergy Rehabilitation, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

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

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 87 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 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  4. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  5. 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"

  6. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  7. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  8. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.

    902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

  9. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  10. Kangol Ltd. v. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc.

    974 F.2d 161 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times

    No. 92-1059. August 31, 1992. James M. Wetzel, Chicago, Ill., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joanne M. Dennison, Chicago, Ill. Paul M. Denk, St. Louis, Mo., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. Kangol Limited (Kangol) appeals from the August 21, 1991, decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustaining KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc.'s (Kangaroos) Opposition No. 80,228. Kangaroos

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,206 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit