Nova Knits, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.
833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 163 times
Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
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"
Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.
961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 12 times
Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"
Kangol Ltd. v. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc.
974 F.2d 161 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 11 times
No. 92-1059. August 31, 1992. James M. Wetzel, Chicago, Ill., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joanne M. Dennison, Chicago, Ill. Paul M. Denk, St. Louis, Mo., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. Kangol Limited (Kangol) appeals from the August 21, 1991, decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustaining KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc.'s (Kangaroos) Opposition No. 80,228. Kangaroos
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming likelihood of confusion
In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.
837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"
Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller
477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 5 times
Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,607 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"

Nova Knits, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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

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

Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

Affirming likelihood of confusion

Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion

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"