§

National Association of Realtors v. Titan Int’l., Inc.

No. 91125778 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2004)
National Association of Realtors v. Titan Int’l., Inc.

14 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 194 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  3. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

    293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

  4. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  5. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  6. Enterprises Rent-A-Car v. Advan. Rent-A-Car

    330 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    In Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., 330 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Enterprise challenged Advantage's use of the phrase "We'll Even Pick You Up" in television commercials broadcast in San Antonio, Texas between 1992 and 1995 as diluting its own phrases "Pick the Company that Picks You Up" and "Pick Enterprise, We'll Pick You Up," which Enterprise began using in 1994.

  7. Midwest Plastic v. Underwriters Laboratories

    906 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 13 times
    In Midwest Plastic Fabricators, Inc. v. Underwriters Labs. Inc., 906 F.2d 1568, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Federal Circuit—on an appeal discussing a different subsection than the one FCA asserts here—explained that "if a certification mark's owner also allowed the mark to be used as a trademark, there would be a basis for cancellation of the registration."

  8. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 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.

  9. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

    748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

  10. G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes, Ltd.

    917 F.2d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that a determination of secondary meaning is a question of fact which is reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard