§

Night Wines, LLC

No. 87084959 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)
Night Wines, LLC

13 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

  5. 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"

  6. In re I.Am.Symbolic, LLC

    866 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that the similarity of the marks weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion

  7. In re Spirits Intern., N.V

    563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

  8. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  9. 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

  10. In re Sarkli, Ltd.

    721 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 83-983. November 18, 1983. Arnold Sprung, New York City, argued, for appellant. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and John W. Newhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Serial No. 266643. Before FRIEDMAN, SMITH and NIES, Circuit Judges. NIES, Circuit Judge. The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

  11. 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

  12. 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"