Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Industrial Zapatera JR S.A. De C.V.

No. 76589822 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2007)
Industrial Zapatera JR S.A. De C.V.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  3. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  4. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  5. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"

  6. General Shoe Corp. v. Hollywood-Maxwell Co.

    277 F.2d 169 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6469. April 12, 1960. Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers McClatchey, Atlanta, Ga. (Ernest P. Rogers, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel), for appellant. John Flam, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and JOHNSON, retired, Associate Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Appellant owns and is the prior user of the trademark "Ingenue" on shoes and hosiery. Appellee seeks registration of the identical mark for use on brassieres. The Commissioner, through

  7. Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody

    286 F.2d 623 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6628. February 8, 1961. Jacobi Jacobi, Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D.C. (Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Myron Amer, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code.

  8. In re Keller, Heumann Thompson Co.

    81 F.2d 399 (C.C.P.A. 1936)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3570. January 27, 1936. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents, Serial No. 347,857. In the matter of the application of Keller, Heumann Thompson Company, Incorporated, for registration of a trade-mark. From the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, affirming the Examiner's decision denying the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Harold E. Stonebraker, of Rochester, N.Y., for appellant. R.F. Whitehead, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel)

  9. 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"