§

Match Group, LLC v. Pooria Shahin

91241077 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2021)
Match Group, LLC v. Pooria Shahin

56 Cited authorities

  1. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 254 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  2. Thane International, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp.

    305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 192 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the marks "Orbi-Trek" and "TREK" were nearly identical

  3. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  4. Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp.

    378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 107 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that initial interest confusion occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiff's trademark in a way calculated to capture a consumer's attention and divert the consumer to the defendant's own Web site

  5. 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"

  6. 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"

  7. Everest Capital Ltd. v. Everest Funds Mgmt

    393 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding tentative Trademark Office notice because it was a "tentative opinion" and "the agency opinion had the potential to unfairly prejudice the defendants if the jury mistakenly viewed it as an official government position on the critical confusion issue that the jury had to decide"

  8. 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"

  9. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  10. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,819 times   328 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,910 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,033 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  14. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"