Mark A. Hoffman v. Ace Antenna Co.

14 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman
900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 51 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants
31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 21 times
Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes
Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.
823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 24 times
Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”
Martahus v. Video Duplication Services, Inc.
3 F.3d 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 13 times
Affirming cancellation of service mark where party seeking cancellation provided sales invoices, draft contract, and testimony demonstrating prior use of mark in dealings with customers and the relevant public on specific dates
In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.
837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"
Plitt Theatres v. American Nat. Bank and Trust
697 F. Supp. 1031 (N.D. Ill. 1988) Cited 8 times
No. 88 C 4718. October 24, 1988. David G. Lynch, Mark I. Feldman, Keith W. Medansky, Rudnick Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Floyd A. Mandell, Kirk T. Hartley, Deborah A. Borrowdale, Katten Muchin Zavis, David S. Heller, Mindy B. Gordon, Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom Moritz, David W. Ruttenberg, Ruttenberg Ruttenberg, Chicago, Ill., for defendants. ORDER BUA, District Judge. The controversy in this case concerns whether plaintiff or defendants are entitled to use the service marks

Mark A. Hoffman v. Ace Antenna Co.

14 Cited authorities

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

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”

Affirming cancellation of service mark where party seeking cancellation provided sales invoices, draft contract, and testimony demonstrating prior use of mark in dealings with customers and the relevant public on specific dates

Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"