§

Licores Veracruz, S.A. de C.V.

No. 77753913 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2012)
Licores Veracruz, S.A. de C.V.

10 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  3. 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

  4. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

    748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

  5. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 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

  6. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Industries

    518 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 3 times
    In Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1975) the court explained that "While the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods or service should, in appropriate cases, be considered in determining likelihood of confusion... the law has long protected the legitimate interests of trademark owners from confusion among noncompetitive, but related, products bearing confusingly similar marks."

  7. Schenley Distillers, v. General Cigar Co.

    427 F.2d 783 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 5 times
    In Schenley Distillers, Inc. v. General Cigar Co., Inc., 427 F.2d 783, 57 CCPA 1213 (1970), and in McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. P. Lorillard Co., 120 USPQ 306 (TTAB 1959), element (9) led to a finding that confusion was unlikely when the same mark was used on a beverage and a tobacco product.

  8. Tampa Cigar Company v. John Walker Sons

    222 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1955)   Cited 14 times

    No. 15342. May 13, 1955. E.O. Palermo, Tampa, Fla., for appellant. Ellis W. Leavenworth, New York City, Harry B. Terrell, Whitaker, Whitaker Terrell, Tampa, Fla., for appellee. Leslie D. Taggart, Watson Leavenworth Kelton Taggart, New York City, of counsel. Before RIVES, TUTTLE and CAMERON, Circuit Judges. CAMERON, Circuit Judge. The pattern of this decision is set by what we wrote when the case was before us on the former appeal, and what the district court did upon remand when he tried the case

  9. John Walker Sons v. Tampa Cigar Company

    124 F. Supp. 254 (S.D. Fla. 1954)   Cited 7 times

    Civ. A. No. 2009. September 2, 1954. Harry B. Terrell and Whitaker, Whitaker Terrell, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff. Ellis W. Leavenworth and Leslie D. Taggart, New York City, of counsel. E.O. Palermo, Tampa, Fla., for defendant. WHITEHURST, District Judge. Having considered the evidence and stipulations of the parties, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact. 1. Plaintiff is a British corporation and a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom of Great

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 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"