§

International Beauty Exchange v. GIP.C.I., Inc.

No. 92045813 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2008)
International Beauty Exchange v. GIP.C.I., Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 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"

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

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

    293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

  4. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. Villanova University v. Villanova Alumni Educ. Found., Inc.

    123 F. Supp. 2d 293 (E.D. Pa. 2000)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the WILDCATS mark was entitled to protection

  7. 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"

  8. 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.