§

Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co. v. Scot Fetzer Co.

No. 91094387 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 1999)
Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co. v. Scot Fetzer Co.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Scoot Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc.

    589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir. 1978)   Cited 282 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nineteen misdirected letters in four years were insufficient to establish likelihood of confusion

  2. 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"

  3. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  4. 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

  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. S.C. Johnson Son v. Johnson

    175 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1949)   Cited 110 times
    Construing 15 U.S.C. § 1114

  7. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  8. G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes, Ltd.

    917 F.2d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that a determination of secondary meaning is a question of fact which is reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard

  9. Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc.

    742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In Levi Strauss Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 U.S.P.Q. 939 (Fed. Cir. 1984), we affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register a mark for a shoe tab. Noting the significant prior use of such tabs by other companies, we held that "Levi's use of a tab on shoes has been neither first nor exclusive," thus, it failed to show that its mark was distinctive.

  10. Colony Foods, Inc. v. Sagemark, Ltd.

    735 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting a party's argument that the use of the word "HOBO" in several of its marks created a "family", and stating that the party failed to establish, for example, by a survey, that the term HOBO is used in the public in connection with restaurant services to identify the party exclusively.

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,339 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint