§

Nova Clothing Co., L.L.C.

No. 75229424 (T.T.A.B. May. 26, 1999)
Nova Clothing Co., L.L.C.

10 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. W.E. Bassett Company v. Revlon, Inc.

    435 F.2d 656 (2d Cir. 1970)   Cited 182 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding unjust enrichment after defendant sold a product with plaintiff's mark "in the teeth of the patent office's refusal to register" that mark

  3. 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"

  4. Menendez v. Holt

    128 U.S. 514 (1888)   Cited 336 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the plaintiff had delayed in bringing suit, "there was neither conduct nor negligence which could be held to destroy the right to prevention of further injury"

  5. A. T. Cross Co. v. Jonathan Bradley Pens, Inc.

    470 F.2d 689 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 56 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between CROSS pens and La Crosse pens

  6. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

    534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"

  7. Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co.

    223 F.2d 485 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 10 times
    In Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co., 223 F.2d 485, 487, 42 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1001, the involved marks were "Railbird" and "Game Bird," and the Assistant Commissioner had held that "`* * * the marks of both parties are apparently always used in conjunction with the more familiar and better known trade-marks "Dobbs" (opposer's) and "Stetson" and device (applicant's), thereby eliminating likelihood that purchasers would be confused, misled or deceived into believing that the hats so marked emanate from the same source; * * *."

  8. Hammermill Paper Co. v. Gulf States Paper

    337 F.2d 662 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7181. November 5, 1964. Charles L. Lovercheck, Erie, Pa., for appellant. Raphael Semmes, Washington, D.C. (G. Mallet Prevost, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge Worley, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code. RICH

  9. Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody

    286 F.2d 623 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6628. February 8, 1961. Jacobi Jacobi, Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D.C. (Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Myron Amer, New York City, 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 28, United States Code.

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 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"