§

N.A.D., Inc.

No. 75370139 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2000)
N.A.D., Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  3. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  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. In re Bed & Breakfast Registry

    791 F.2d 157 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 24 times

    Appeal No. 85-2418. May 20, 1986. Mark E. Singer, Winnetka, Ill., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, Trademark Examining Atty., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief, were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration on the Principal Register of the service

  6. In re Hearst Corp.

    982 F.2d 493 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times
    Finding presence of term GIRL in VARGA GIRL sufficient to distinguish from VARGAS for identical goods

  7. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  8. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  9. Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. Wander Company

    280 F.2d 435 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6533. July 20, 1960. Arnold B. Christen, Washington, D.C., of counsel, for appellant. Davis, Lindsey, Hibben Noyes, Albert W. Bicknell, Chicago, Ill. (George N. Hibben, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title

  10. Magnaflux Corporation v. Sonoflux Corp.

    231 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6193. April 3, 1956. Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Chicago, Ill. (Carlton Hill, Chicago, Ill., and Wm. T. Estabrook, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Thomas O. Arnold, Houston, Tex. (Hutcheson, Taliaferro Hutcheson, Houston, Tex., of counsel), for appellee. 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 Examiner

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,612 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"

  12. Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation

    15 U.S.C. § 1068   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"