Market America, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech
269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 229 times
Holding that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that parties' products were unrelated even though both fell under the broader category of "corporate security" where the plaintiff focused on physical security and the defendant focused on information and computer security
Astra Pharmaceutical, v. Beckman Instruments
718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983) Cited 153 times
Holding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Beer Nuts, Inc. v. Clover Club Foods Co.
805 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1986) Cited 113 times
Holding courts should infer intent from similar marks
Heartsprings v. Heartspring
143 F.3d 550 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 76 times
Holding the district court did not err by declining to weigh this factor firmly in plaintiff's favor where there was no similarity in the parties' use and presentation of their respective trade beyond their obvious sameness of spelling
Paco Sport, Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Parfums
86 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cited 63 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding fact that employees giving anectodal evidence of actual confusion had "professional association" with plaintiff to render their evidence unpersuasive
In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.
105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 33 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
In re Shell Oil Co.
992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 35 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”
Coherent, Inc. v. Coherent Technologies
935 F.2d 1122 (10th Cir. 1991) Cited 31 times
Affirming finding of no likelihood of confusion when only the similarity factor favored plaintiff
Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys
954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 28 times
Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 times 274 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"

Market America, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that parties' products were unrelated even though both fell under the broader category of "corporate security" where the plaintiff focused on physical security and the defendant focused on information and computer security

Holding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

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

Holding courts should infer intent from similar marks

Holding the district court did not err by declining to weigh this factor firmly in plaintiff's favor where there was no similarity in the parties' use and presentation of their respective trade beyond their obvious sameness of spelling

Finding fact that employees giving anectodal evidence of actual confusion had "professional association" with plaintiff to render their evidence unpersuasive

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

Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

Affirming finding of no likelihood of confusion when only the similarity factor favored plaintiff

Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

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"