5 Cited authorities
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 70 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
In re Bed & Breakfast Registry
791 F.2d 157 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 24 timesAppeal No. 85-2418. May 20, 1986. Mark E. Singer, Winnetka, Ill., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Trademark Examining Atty., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief, were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration on the Principal Register of the service
In re Hearst Corp.
982 F.2d 493 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 11 timesFinding presence of term GIRL in VARGA GIRL sufficient to distinguish from VARGAS for identical goods
Quaker St. Oil Ref. Corp. v. Quaker Oil
453 F.2d 1296 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 8616. January 20, 1972. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Frank B. Powell, Cohn Powell, St. Louis, Mo., attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reported in full at
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,584 times 270 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"