§

Hybrid Athletics, LLC v. Hylete LLC

No. 91213057 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)
Hybrid Athletics, LLC v. Hylete LLC

13 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 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"

  4. World Carpets v. Dick Littrell's New Wld. Car

    438 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1971)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that "very little proof of actual confusion would be necessary to prove likelihood of confusion"

  5. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  6. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  7. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.

    281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

  8. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  9. 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"

  10. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Federal Corp.

    673 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    No. 2010–1376. 2012-03-16 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC (formerly Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC) and Bridgestone Corporation, Appellants, v. FEDERAL CORPORATION, Appellee. Douglas A. Rettew, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Danny M. Awdeh. Everett E. Fruehling, Christensen, O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC, of Seattle, Washington, argued for appellee. NEWMAN Douglas A. Rettew, Finnegan