Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Joseph J. Juras v. Kent Christopher Lyons

No. 91113737 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2001)
Joseph J. Juras v. Kent Christopher Lyons

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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"

  3. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.

    811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 42 times
    Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

  4. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

  5. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  6. SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.

    697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

  7. 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

  8. B.R. Baker Co. v. Lebow Bros

    150 F.2d 580 (C.C.P.A. 1945)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5030. June 25, 1945. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents of United States Patent Office, Interference No. 3,358. Application filed in 1940 by the B.R. Baker Company for registration of a trade-mark. An interference was declared with two trade-marks registered by Lebow Brothers on applications filed in 1932 and later. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents reversing the decision of the Examiner, who had held that the B.R. Baker Company was the first user and owner of