§

Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc.

No. 85291663 (T.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)
Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc.

29 Cited authorities

  1. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 161 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  2. South Corp. v. United States

    690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 262 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Court of Claims opinions as binding precedent

  3. Johnson Johnson [*] Merck v. Smithkline

    960 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 189 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that where a portion of the survey population may have held extrinsic beliefs prior to viewing an advertisement, a control mechanism "would likely be indispensable"

  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  6. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 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"

  7. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 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"

  8. Mothers Restaurant, v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.

    723 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 81 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.

  9. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 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"

  10. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter

    15 U.S.C. § 1056   Cited 69 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought