§

Mid-America Energy Resources, Inc. v. Mid-American Energy Co.

No. 91103197 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 1999)
Mid-America Energy Resources, Inc. v. Mid-American Energy Co.

9 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

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

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 87 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

  3. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  4. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.

    902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

  5. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.

    565 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 77-576. November 23, 1977. Rober C. Comstock, Los Angeles, Cal., of record, for appellant. Edward A. Meilman, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, New York City, of record, for appellee; Sidney G. Faber, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing an

  6. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  7. Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc. v. Hardman & Holden Ltd.

    434 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 10 times
    In Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc. v. Hardman Holden Ltd., 434 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1970) the parties used similar marks "COZIRC" and "ZIRCO" in the sale of specialized chemicals to paint and ink manufacturers.

  8. Steer Inn Sys., v. Laughner's Drive-In

    405 F.2d 1401 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that use of the mark on an office door sign, letterheads and architectural drawings was not enough to prove prior use

  9. Application of Walker Process Equipment

    233 F.2d 329 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6194. May 15, 1956. Louis Robertson, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY and JACKSON, retired Judges. WORLEY, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Trade-Mark Examiner refusing registration on the Principal Register of the words "Walker Process Equipment Inc." Registration was refused on the ground