8 Cited authorities
Pignons S. A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp.
657 F.2d 482 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 258 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding no evidence of intent in a trademark infringement case
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Recot, Inc. v. Becton
214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 57 timesHolding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
Denney v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation
263 F.2d 347 (C.C.P.A. 1959) Cited 7 timesPatent Appeal No. 6410. February 5, 1959. Mock Blum, New York City (Asher Blum, New York City, and Charles R. Allen, Jr., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Howard A. Rosenberg, New York City (William R. Liberman, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Acting Chief Judge, and RICH and MARTIN, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"