§

Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc.

No. 91110043 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2001)
Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 221,462 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  3. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Wheeler

    814 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1987)   Cited 136 times
    Holding "Beetle" similar to "Beetle Barn"

  4. In re Int'l Flavors Fragrances Inc.

    183 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 60 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "[t]he federal registration of a trademark does not create an exclusive property right in the mark."

  5. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc.

    758 F. Supp. 512 (E.D. Mo. 1991)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that acquiescence can cause loss of mark

  6. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  10. Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland

    407 F.2d 881 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland Co., 407 F.2d 881, 888-89, 160 USPQ 715, 721 (CCPA 1969) the court stated that false suggestion requires the existence of likelihood of confusion.

  11. Section 1115 - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses

    15 U.S.C. § 1115   Cited 1,958 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that registration of a mark "shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark" but "shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,606 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"