Marimekko Oyj

8 Cited authorities

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"
Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors
748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 48 times
Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis
In re MBNA America Bank, N.A.
340 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
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).
In re Gyulay
820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 14 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive
Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings
576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 11 times
Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations
In re Northern Paper Mills
64 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1933) Cited 7 times
Prohibiting registration of a descriptive non-English mark regardless of "the idea which may, or may not, convey to the general public"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,580 times 260 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"

Marimekko Oyj

8 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

Noting that arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive

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).

Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

Prohibiting registration of a descriptive non-English mark regardless of "the idea which may, or may not, convey to the general public"

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"