New Jersey Basketball, LLC v. Cybervillage Corporation

26 Cited authorities

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"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 76 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
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
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"
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 26 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"
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group
637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 27 times 3 Legal Analyses
Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum
586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 28 times
Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing
Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.
293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE
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
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”
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,872 times 329 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,914 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,038 times 99 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 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"
Section 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 148 times 19 Legal Analyses
Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 24 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

New Jersey Basketball, LLC v. Cybervillage Corporation

26 Cited authorities

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

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

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

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

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"

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

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

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”

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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"

Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"