§

Mi Pueblo San Jose, Inc.

No. 85130583 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2012)
Mi Pueblo San Jose, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  3. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  4. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  5. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  6. 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

  7. Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd.

    393 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that textually identical "RITZ" marks used in cooking classes and kitchen textiles were dissimilar

  8. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  9. TBC Corp. v. Holsa, Inc.

    126 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    No. 96-1140 DECIDED: October 9, 1997 Appealed from: Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. (Opposition No. 84,567) Marsha G. Gentner, Jacobson, Price, Holman Stern, P.L.L.C., of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was Leesa N. Weiss. William R. Golden, Jr., of Kelley Drye Warren, of New York, New York, argued for appellee. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RICH. Circuit Judge RADER dissents

  10. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 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"

  11. 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