§

Hormel Foods Corporation and Hormel Foods, LLC v. Spam Arrest, LLC

No. 92042134 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2007)
Hormel Foods Corporation and Hormel Foods, LLC v. Spam Arrest, LLC

19 Cited authorities

  1. Moseley v. Secret Catalogue, Inc.

    537 U.S. 418 (2003)   Cited 251 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such evidence is sufficient to meet the heightened standard of actual dilution

  2. Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Mar., Inc.

    202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 224 times
    Holding that an injunction requiring the defendant to relinquish a domain name it registered because the defendant's registration of the domain name violated the ACPA was not impermissibly retroactive since the injunction provided only prospective relief

  3. TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc.

    244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that trademark holder's annual sales of $280 million were not enough to constitute fame

  4. 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"

  5. 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"

  6. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 73 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  7. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 82 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  8. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 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

  9. Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc.

    66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. 1999)   Cited 32 times
    Finding no similarity between the game CLUE and consulting services offered by Clue Computing even in light of Hasbro's intended use of its web site for technical support of the CD-ROM version of CLUE

  10. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,886 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,659 times   326 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,597 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"