§

Krueger International, Inc. v. Okamura Corporation

No. 91174281 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2010)
Krueger International, Inc. v. Okamura Corporation

12 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 195 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. 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"

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  4. 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”

  5. 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."

  6. Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

    640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 20 times
    Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context

  7. Towers v. Advent Software, Inc.

    913 F.2d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 90-1097. September 6, 1990. Helen Hill Minsker, of Beveridge, DeGrandi Weilacher, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was John T. Roberts. James L. Warren, of Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Kevin M. Fong and Marina H. Park. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CONTI, Senior District Judge. Circuit

  8. 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

  9. In re Research and Trading Corp.

    793 F.2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Appeal No. 86-705. June 12, 1986. Peter J. Georges, of Russell, Georges, Brenenman, Hellwege Yee, Arlington, Va., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, of the Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for Com'r of Patents and Trademarks. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor and Julie Seyler, Trademark Examining Atty. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge

  10. Application of Clorox Co.

    578 F.2d 305 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 77-628. June 30, 1978. Stephen M. Westbrook, San Francisco, Cal. (Phillips, Moore, Weissenberger, Lempio Majestic, San Francisco, Cal.), attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)