iSatori, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Autozone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.
373 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 156 times
Holding that the parties' use of their respective “house marks” in proximity to the challenged mark “reduces the likelihood of confusion from any similarity that does exist”
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 188 times 30 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
Worthington Foods, Inc. v. Kellogg Co.
732 F. Supp. 1417 (S.D. Ohio 1990) Cited 96 times
Holding the presence of a word to be the dominant part of a composite mark consisting of a heart-shaped design and the word HEARTWISE, because "it is the word segment which conveys the suggestion of healthiness which the plaintiff intends. The heart-shaped design merely augments the message conveyed by the word."
National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema
937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 82 times
Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 24 times
Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 26 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"
In re Mighty Leaf Tea
601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.
902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 21 times
Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

iSatori, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that the parties' use of their respective “house marks” in proximity to the challenged mark “reduces the likelihood of confusion from any similarity that does exist”

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

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"

Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."