Houlihan’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Hooligan’s Pub & Oyster Bar, Ltd.

7 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 194 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
  2. 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
  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. Hollister Incorporated v. Downey

    565 F.2d 1208 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 2 times
    In Hollister, one of our predecessor courts held that the opposer's order for status copies of its registration to be prepared by the Patent and Trademark Office and filed with its Notice of Opposition sufficed to create a prima facie case.
  5. Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller

    477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion
  6. Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 32   Cited 2,413 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial
  7. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"