§

i.am.symbolic, llc

No. 85044495 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2015)
i.am.symbolic, llc

21 Cited authorities

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

    978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 290 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 109 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 150 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 194 times   33 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 127 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 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"

  7. DeCosta v. Viacom Intern., Inc.

    981 F.2d 602 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that, where the court had already presumed secondary meaning, USPTO registration "adds nothing significantly new" and that the Lanham Act does not "make it easier for a registrant . . . to prove that a relevant buying public may confuse some other person's mark with his own"

  8. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 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. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

  10. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 27 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"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,922 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting 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"