In re Bose Corp.

Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

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"

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

In Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.

J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

Rule 902 - Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

Allowing authentication of domestic records of regularly conducted activity "by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person"

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"

Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

Section 1058 - Duration, affidavits and fees

Providing a ten-year duration for registered marks

Section 1141 - Definitions

Section 1141k - Duration, affidavits and fees

Setting forth requirements for timely affidavit of use or justifiable non-use

Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"