§

Longhornville Limited

No. 85884496 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2017)
Longhornville Limited

9 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. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 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"

  3. 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"

  4. In re Mighty Leaf Tea

    601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

  5. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  6. 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

  7. Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises, Inc.

    889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that VITTORIO RICCI and NINA RICCI are similar

  8. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 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

  9. Application of Yawata Iron Steel Co.

    403 F.2d 752 (C.C.P.A. 1968)

    Patent Appeal No. 8021. December 5, 1968. Wenderoth, Lind Ponack, Washington, D.C. (Ernest F. Wenderoth, Vincent M. Creedon, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (George Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Yawata Iron Steel Co., Ltd., appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration of the mark shown