12 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America
970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 39 timesFinding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.
769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 26 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.
703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 19 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.
565 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1977) Cited 11 timesAppeal No. 77-576. November 23, 1977. Rober C. Comstock, Los Angeles, Cal., of record, for appellant. Edward A. Meilman, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, New York City, of record, for appellee; Sidney G. Faber, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing an
Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing
473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 15 timesPatent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 1070 - Appeals to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from decisions of examiners
15 U.S.C. § 1070 Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding that "[a]n appeal may be taken to the [TTAB] from any final decision of the examiner in charge of the registration of marks"
Section 2.114 - Answer
37 C.F.R. § 2.114 Cited 5 timesIdentifying " defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the petition," as the sole compulsory counterclaim to a cancellation petition