Michael W. Wyckoff v. Rick E. Briggs

12 Cited authorities

Dawn Donut Company v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc.
267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959) Cited 253 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding the Lanham Act grants "the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce" and noting commerce is defined by the Act to "include all the commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress"
T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac
77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 29 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services
Weiner King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.
615 F.2d 512 (C.C.P.A. 1980) Cited 41 times
Holding that the unregistered company did not infringe on the registered company's rights when the unregistered company started using the mark first, was in a completely different geographical area, and had no plans to expand
John R. Thompson Co. v. Holloway
366 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1966) Cited 65 times
In John R. Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1966), the court stated that although plaintiff's mark should have been refused registration if primarily a surname, this could not be raised as a defense because it was not one of the defenses enumerated under § 1115(b).
In re Beatrice Foods Co.
429 F.2d 466 (C.C.P.A. 1970) Cited 49 times
In Beatrice Foods, our predecessor court held that "[o]nce there has been a determination that both parties are entitled to a federal registration, the extent to which those registrations are to be restricted territorially must... be governed by the statutory standard of likelihood of confusion."
Old Dutch Foods, Inc. v. Dan Dee Pretzel & Potato Chip Co.
477 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1973) Cited 33 times
Directing the PTO to issue a concurrent registration to the defendant with limitations
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.
703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 19 times 2 Legal Analyses
In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
Action Temporary Services v. Labor Force
870 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 10 times
No. 88-1446. March 23, 1989. J. Rodman Steele, Steele, Gould Fried, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory A. Nelson. Jonathan E. Jobe, Jr., Hubbard, Thurman, Turner Tucker, Dallas, Tex., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Molly Buck Richard. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this concurrent use proceeding, the
Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Thriftway, Inc.
809 F. Supp. 38 (S.D. Ohio 1992) Cited 3 times
No. C-1-92-418. October 28, 1992. James Harry Hayes, Frost Jacobs, Cincinnati, OH, for plaintiff. Bruce Tittel, Wood, Herron Evans, Cincinnati, OH, for defendant. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SPIEGEL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 3), the Defendant's Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (doc. 4), the Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 7), and the Defendant's Memorandum
Gray v. Daffy Dan's Bargaintown
823 F.2d 522 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 6 times 2 Legal Analyses
Appeal No. 86-1508. July 2, 1987. Mark Kusner, Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was D. Peter Hochberg. Roy H. Wepner, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz Mentlik, Westfield, N.J., argued for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. NIES, Circuit Judge. Daniel R. Gray appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,584 times 270 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"

Michael W. Wyckoff v. Rick E. Briggs

12 Cited authorities

Holding the Lanham Act grants "the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce" and noting commerce is defined by the Act to "include all the commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress"

Holding that the unregistered company did not infringe on the registered company's rights when the unregistered company started using the mark first, was in a completely different geographical area, and had no plans to expand

In John R. Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1966), the court stated that although plaintiff's mark should have been refused registration if primarily a surname, this could not be raised as a defense because it was not one of the defenses enumerated under § 1115(b).

In Beatrice Foods, our predecessor court held that "[o]nce there has been a determination that both parties are entitled to a federal registration, the extent to which those registrations are to be restricted territorially must... be governed by the statutory standard of likelihood of confusion."

Directing the PTO to issue a concurrent registration to the defendant with limitations

In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

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"