§

Janet Cummings

No. 86566593 (T.T.A.B. May. 8, 2017)
Janet Cummings

21 Cited authorities

  1. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp.

    287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 1,264 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Listing factors, including actual confusion, to be considered in assessing whether the Lanham Act’s "likelihood of confusion" test for infringement is met

  2. Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurant

    360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 239 times
    Affirming denial of a preliminary injunction

  3. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  4. Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton

    743 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)   Cited 198 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff had established secondary meaning in its mark because it had "prominently displayed the Singleton name on virtually all of its seafood products for over 25 years," distributed promotional films widely, expended over $400,000 annually in worldwide markets on its promotion, and included market surveys in the record strongly identifying the company name with its products

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  6. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 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"

  7. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

  8. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  9. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.

    281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

  10. Taylor Wine Co. v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc.

    569 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1978)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that, where a wine-making partnership sold its assets to a corporation named Taylor Wine Company, the grandson could not use his family name in connection with labelling and advertising his own wine products

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,921 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,615 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"