Industrias La Constancia, S.A. v. The New Horizonte Corporation

34 Cited authorities

  1. Starbucks v. Wolfe's Borough

    588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 174 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the marks STARBUCKS and CHARBUCKS were not similar enough to likely cause dilution by blurring because, despite near identical text and sound, the plaintiff failed to show that the marks were either visually or contextually similar, thus precluding a New York law claim of trademark dilution
  2. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 75 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence was insufficient to establish COACH mark used with handbags and leather goods met fame threshold for federal dilution claim
  3. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 164 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Listing thirteen factors relevant to likelihood of confusion determination
  4. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
  5. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
  6. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 20 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that substantial evidence may support a decision "even if two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the evidence"
  7. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 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"
  8. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
  9. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"
  10. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,284 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Requiring for use-based registration "such number of specimens or facsimiles of the mark as used as may be required by the Director"
  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,446 times   206 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"
  13. § 2.122 Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"