§

NuVision U.S., Inc.

No. 77720572 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2011)
NuVision U.S., Inc.

10 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 195 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  3. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  4. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  5. 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

  6. SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.

    697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

  7. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 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

  8. Smith Brothers Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co.

    476 F.2d 1004 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8947. April 19, 1973. George R. Douglas, Jr. (Misegades Douglas), Washington, D.C., attorneys of record for appellant; Sherman Levy, Washington, D.C., of counsel. B.P. Fishburne, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

  9. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,924 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,617 times   276 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"