§

i.am.symbolic, llc

No. 85044496 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2015)
i.am.symbolic, llc

25 Cited authorities

  1. Sands, Taylor Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.

    978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 285 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark to market a similar isotonic beverage was likely to cause confusion

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

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  3. Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.

    841 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that "reverse confusion . . . is actionable under § 43 of the Lanham Act"

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  5. Ameritech, v. American Inf. Technologies Corp.

    811 F.2d 960 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 126 times
    Holding that there is a public interest in preventing consumer confusion and deception in the marketplace and protecting the trademark holder's property interest in the mark

  6. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 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"

  7. DeCosta v. Viacom Intern., Inc.

    981 F.2d 602 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 73 times
    Holding prior litigation against a defendant, where the court found against the plaintiff on the ultimate fact, is preclusive against the plaintiff in a subsequent action against another defendant

  8. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  9. 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"

  10. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark