§

Hungry Howie’s Pizza & Subs, Inc. v. Neil Diamond

No. 91111879 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2001)
Hungry Howie’s Pizza & Subs, Inc. v. Neil Diamond

7 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 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 88 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. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

    748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

  4. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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

  5. Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings

    576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

  6. Lone Star Manufacturing Co. v. Bill Beasley

    498 F.2d 906 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9201. July 3, 1974. Wofford, Felsman Fails, Fort Worth, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellant; Dennison, Dennison, Townshend Meserole, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Howard E. Moore, Dallas, Tex., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition to appellee's

  7. Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank & Supply Co.

    277 F.2d 192 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 11 times
    In Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank and Supply Co., 277 F.2d 192, 196, 47 CCPA 900, this court found likelihood of confusion between two marks on the basis of a similarity between the designs with which words were displayed. The word marks in that case ("Union" and "Columbian"), taken alone, were not in the least alike and certainly far less likely to cause confusion than the words involved in this appeal.