Ms. Teresa H. Earnhardt v. Bobby Dale Earnhardt LLC

23 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 193 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 73 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 62 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 26 times
Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 27 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"
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.
281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 34 times
Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”
Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.
236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 33 times
Finding no error because, "while the Board did not make explicit findings about the strength of the [opposer’s mark], the Board’s opinion reveals that the Board considered this factor"
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
In re Chatam International Inc.
380 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 24 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 340,287 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings
37 C.F.R. § 2.52 Cited 29 times
Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

Ms. Teresa H. Earnhardt v. Bobby Dale Earnhardt LLC

23 Cited authorities

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

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"

Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

Finding no error because, "while the Board did not make explicit findings about the strength of the [opposer’s mark], the Board’s opinion reveals that the Board considered this factor"

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”