Jamil, et al.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 194 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Recot, Inc. v. Becton
214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 57 times
Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 74 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries
963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 51 times
Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks
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"
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 17 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
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,616 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"

Jamil, et al.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

Recot, Inc. v. Becton

Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

In re Nat. Data Corp.

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

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"

Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

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

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"