§

Invivo Corporation

No. 78670679 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2007)
Invivo Corporation

11 Cited authorities

  1. Pignons S. A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp.

    657 F.2d 482 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no evidence of intent in a trademark infringement case

  2. Astra Pharmaceutical, v. Beckman Instruments

    718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. 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

  5. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  6. 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

  7. Pfizer Inc. v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods.

    858 F. Supp. 1305 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that "the existence of the family of marks should be judged at the time that the junior user entered the marketplace"

  8. 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

  9. In re N.A.D. Inc.

    754 F.2d 996 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 84-1215. February 14, 1985. Stanley H. Cohen (argued), Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein Cohen, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick (argued), Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, RICH and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from

  10. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal