§

Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency

No. 75977753 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2001)
Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency

8 Cited authorities

  1. World Carpets v. Dick Littrell's New Wld. Car

    438 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1971)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that "very little proof of actual confusion would be necessary to prove likelihood of confusion"

  2. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  3. Powder River Oil v. Powder River Petroleum

    830 P.2d 403 (Wyo. 1992)   Cited 21 times

    No. 91-119. April 16, 1992. Appeal from District Court, Niobrara County, John T. Langdon, J. Morris R. Massey of Brown Drew, Casper, for appellants. Richard R. Wilking of Schwartz, Bon, McCrary, Walker, Casper, for appellees. Before URBIGKIT, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ. URBIGKIT, Chief Justice. This case involves application of the Wyoming common law of trade name infringement and unfair competition. Appellants, W.R. Gibson (Gibson) and Powder River Oil Company, Inc., filed suit

  4. In re Nantucket, Inc.

    677 F.2d 95 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 28 times
    Describing this legislative history

  5. In re Compagnie Generale Maritime

    993 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    No. 91-1102. April 29, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Declined June 7, 1993. Marc E. Brown, Poms, Smith, Lande Rose, Professional Corp., Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Brian W. Kasell. Albin F. Drost, Deputy Sol., Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and

  6. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  7. In re California Perfume Co.

    56 F.2d 885 (C.C.P.A. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2926. March 28, 1932. Appeal from Commissioner of Patents. Application by the California Perfume Company, Inc., for registration of a trade-mark. The application was denied by the Commissioner of Patents, and the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Henry G. Hunt, of Washington, D.C., for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. BLAND, Associate Judge. Applicant's

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"