Selox v. Fausek

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

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"

In re Nat. Data Corp.

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

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

Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Application of Abcor Development Corp.

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

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"