§

Lancome Parfums et Beaute & Cie

No. 85081226 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2014)
Lancome Parfums et Beaute & Cie

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Glow Industries, Inc. v. Lopez

    252 F. Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "while defendants' commercial strength is likely to overwhelm plaintiff in the marketplace to the extent that their products compete, the court concludes that Glow, Inc. will not likely be able to prove that the strength of the mark factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion because its own mark is conceptually weak and operates in a crowded field"

  3. Clinique Laboratories, Inc. v. Dep Corp.

    945 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)   Cited 63 times
    Finding no tarnishment or shoddiness when the plaintiff did not "present evidence of the [defendant's] products' inferior quality"

  4. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark

  5. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  6. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  7. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  8. Origins Natural Resources, Inc v. Kotler

    01 Civ. 1881 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. May. 8, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    01 Civ. 1881 (HB) May 8, 2001 OPINION ORDER Hon. HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge: Plaintiff Origins Natural Resources, Inc. ("Origins") brings this action by Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction barring defendants Ben Kotler and LDI, LLC ("Kotler") from using the trademark NATURAL ORIGINS. Plaintiff sues for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1), 1125(a), and 1125(c), and for related claims of trademark

  9. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.

    648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    Finding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods

  10. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"

  11. 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"

  12. Section 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 185 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"