§

Panelfold, Inc. v. ChemRex Inc.

No. 91103270 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2002)
Panelfold, Inc. v. ChemRex Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc.

    803 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that incontestable status does not preclude defendant from arguing that mark is weak and not infringed because no confusion was present

  4. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    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"

  5. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

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

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  7. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  8. Estiverne v. Sak's Fifth Avenue

    9 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that a retail store had a "legitimate business need" under the FCRA when it requested a credit report to determine whether to accept or reject a consumer's check

  9. 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

  10. Weiner King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.

    615 F.2d 512 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the unregistered company did not infringe on the registered company's rights when the unregistered company started using the mark first, was in a completely different geographical area, and had no plans to expand