Nielsen Business Media, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”
Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.
926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 31 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark
In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.
769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 26 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco
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.
American Sec. Bank v. Am. Sec. Trust Co.
571 F.2d 564 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 22 times
Holding "American Security" legally equivalent to "American Security Bank"
Hollowform, Inc. v. Aeh
515 F.2d 1174 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 11 times
In Apache Bend Apartments v. United States, 515 F.2d 1174 [ 987 F.2D 1174], 1177 (5th Cir. 1993), the plaintiff-taxpayers were not seeking to litigate their own tax liability, but the tax liability of taxpayers who were not before the court.
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,608 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"

Nielsen Business Media, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.

Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.

Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco

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

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.

American Sec. Bank v. Am. Sec. Trust Co.

Holding "American Security" legally equivalent to "American Security Bank"

Hollowform, Inc. v. Aeh

In Apache Bend Apartments v. United States, 515 F.2d 1174 [ 987 F.2D 1174], 1177 (5th Cir. 1993), the plaintiff-taxpayers were not seeking to litigate their own tax liability, but the tax liability of taxpayers who were not before the court.

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"