§

McCrane, Inc.

No. 85276221 (T.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)
McCrane, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  2. 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

  3. Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asph. Co.

    220 U.S. 446 (1911)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a trademark in "Ruberoid"—a misspelling of "Rubberoid"—was descriptive and did not "become arbitrary by being misspelled"

  4. In re Omaha Nat. Corp.

    819 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 86-1567. May 20, 1987. Dennis L. Thomte, Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees Sease, Omaha, Neb., argued for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARCHER, Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge. Omaha National Bank appeals

  5. Car-Freshner Corp. v. Auto Aid Mfg. Corp.

    461 F. Supp. 1055 (N.D.N.Y. 1978)   Cited 6 times

    No. 76-CV-501. December 5, 1978. Mackenzie Smith, Lewis, Michell Hughes, Syracuse, N.Y., for plaintiffs; Watson, Cole, Grindle Watson, Washington, D.C., Kevin M. Reilly, Syracuse, N.Y., F.M. deRosa, Walter D. Ames, Bernard L. Sweeney, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Stuart R. Shaw, New York City, for defendants. MUNSON, District Judge. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, and treble damages for alleged trademark infringement

  6. Application of Keebler Company

    479 F.2d 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8966. June 14, 1973. A.W. Molinare, Chicago, Ill. (Molinare, Allegretti, Newitt Witcoff, Chicago, Ill.,) attorneys of record, for appellant. Robert C. Williams, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges and ALMOND, Senior Judge. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision

  7. Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc.

    340 F.2d 978 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7290. February 11, 1965. Michael S. Striker, New York City, for appellant. James E. Archer, Stamford, Conn., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (abstract 138 USPQ 691) dismissing appellant's opposition to the registration of a trademark on application serial No. 67,512, filed February 11, 1959, for "Hair Shampoos." Applicant's mark consists of

  8. Armour and Company v. Organon, Inc.

    245 F.2d 495 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6266. June 25, 1957. Carl C. Batz and Frank T. Barber, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Alexander, Maltitz, Derenberg Daniels, New York City (Walter J. Derenberg and Joe E. Daniels, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, RICH and JACKSON (retired), Judges. JOHNSON, Chief Judge. This is an appeal in an opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, 106 U.S.P.Q. 220, speaking through the Assistant Commissioner

  9. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. v. Faberge

    304 F.2d 891 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that applicant did not misuse registration symbol where party opposing registration “failed to produce any evidence of an intent ... to deceive the public by such marking”

  10. Andrew J. McPartland v. Montgomery Ward

    164 F.2d 603 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5304. November 29, 1947. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents of United States Patent Office, T.M. Cancelation No. 4376. Trade-mark cancellation proceeding by Montgomery Ward Company against Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences sustaining the petition, the defendant appeals. Affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows, of New York City (Clarence M. Fisher, of Washington, D.C., and George

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,611 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"

  12. Section 1056 - Disclaimer of unregistrable matter

    15 U.S.C. § 1056   Cited 69 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought

  13. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty

  14. Section 2.144 - Reconsideration of decision on ex parte appeal

    37 C.F.R. § 2.144   Cited 1 times

    Any request for rehearing or reconsideration, or modification of the decision, must be filed within one month from the date of the decision. Such time may be extended by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upon a showing of sufficient cause. 37 C.F.R. §2.144 54 FR 29554, July 13, 1989 Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations. Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations. Part 5 is placed in