§

Lebanese Arak Corporation

No. 77072261 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2010)
Lebanese Arak Corporation

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

    415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 29 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Permitting laches as a defense to cancellation claim brought more than five years after registration

  3. Pro Football v. Harjo

    565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 18 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Agreeing that sufficient "evidence of prejudice ... may arise from mere proof of continued investment in the late-attacked mark"

  4. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

    284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 20 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding economic prejudice if a trademark registration were cancelled where a defendant had invested money in marketing and brand development

  5. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

    567 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that laches barred cancellation action against trademark where "[e]conomic prejudice ar[ose] from investment in and development of the trademark"

  6. In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.

    340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive

  7. In re Mavety Media Group Ltd.

    33 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO failed to prove that term was scandalous and thus unregistrable; PTO relied on dictionary definition of disputed term, but dictionary provided alternative definitions; proof failed because of "the absence of evidence as to which of these definitions the substantial composite [of consumers] would choose"

  8. In re McGinley

    660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 14 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register mark depicting genitalia

  9. Application of Belgrade Shoe Company

    411 F.2d 1352 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that there was a likelihood of confusion between COL'EEJUNS' and COLLEGIENNE, which were pronounced similarly

  10. In re Riverbank Canning Co.

    95 F.2d 327 (C.C.P.A. 1938)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming refusal to register MADONNA mark for wine

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 times   275 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 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.52   Cited 29 times
    Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”