§

Pacific Solar Co., Inc. v. Pacific Solar Pty., Ltd.

No. 92030378 (T.T.A.B. May. 24, 2002)
Pacific Solar Co., Inc. v. Pacific Solar Pty., Ltd.

8 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  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. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  5. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

  6. 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

  7. Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.

    849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

  8. Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products

    341 F.2d 127 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7281. February 11, 1965. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, New York City (Arnold Sprung, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Robert C. Williams, D.D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Powermatics appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarding priority to Globe, senior party, in a trademark interference between Globe's Registration No. 704,179 for "PANELUME"