§

InteliStaf Healthcare Manage-ment, L.P.

No. 78387294 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2006)
InteliStaf Healthcare Manage-ment, L.P.

8 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  3. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  4. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  5. Plough, Inc. v. Kreis Laboratories

    314 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 45 times
    In Plough, for example, the district court's injunction prohibited use of names "confusingly similar" to the plaintiff's trademarks.

  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. Natl. Dist. Ch. v. William Grant Sons

    505 F.2d 719 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-566. November 27, 1974. David S. Patterson, Breed, Abbott Morgan, New York City, atty. of record, for appellant. Gerald J. Craugh, New York City, of counsel. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., atty. of record, for appellee. 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

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,609 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"