§

Immunex Corporation v. Applied Medical Research, Inc.

No. 91153080 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2006)
Immunex Corporation v. Applied Medical Research, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp.

    369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,068 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “ ‘trademark infringement amounts to irreparable injury as a matter of law’ ” (quoting S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 378 (3d Cir.1992))

  2. Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech

    269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 229 times
    Holding that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that parties' products were unrelated even though both fell under the broader category of "corporate security" where the plaintiff focused on physical security and the defendant focused on information and computer security

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. 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"

  5. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  6. 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

  7. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  8. Application of Pneumatiques, Caoutchouc Man

    487 F.2d 918 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9067. November 15, 1973. Paul M. Craig, Jr., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, for the Commissioner of Patents, R. V. Lupo, of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (abstracted at 170 USPQ 543) affirming the examiner's refusal to register appellant's mark for

  9. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 147 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"