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.
§

Inspiration Software, Inc. v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

No. 91155251 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2007)
Inspiration Software, Inc. v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

5 Cited authorities

  1. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

    293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

  2. Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.

    238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."

  3. Roederer v. Delicato Vineyards

    148 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that one factor can be dispositive

  4. Sanyo Watch Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co.

    691 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the opposer in a proceeding to test likelihood of confusion "bears the burden of proof which encompasses not only the ultimate burden of persuasion, but also the obligation of going forward with sufficient proof of the material allegations of the Notice of Opposition"

  5. Clinton Detergent Co. v. Procter Gamble

    302 F.2d 745 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 22 times
    In Clinton, 302 F.2d at 748, the court found that the two products in question, car detergent and dish detergent, although intended for different purposes, could be used for the same purpose, and that the purposes were related. Since the goods were also sold through the same retail outlets to the same customers, the court found that the goods were similar.