Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal Analyses
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"
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
Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.
238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times
Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 12 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Application of Abcor Development Corp.
588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
In re Budge Mfg. Co., Inc.
857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Appeal No. 87-1541. September 21, 1988. Eugene E. Renz, Jr., Eugene E. Renz, Jr., P.C., Media, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John S. Munday. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Com'r of Patents and Trademarks, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. NIES, Circuit Judge.
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 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
Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. Englander Co.
324 F.2d 186 (C.C.P.A. 1964) Cited 15 times
Patent Appeal No. 7011. November 14, 1963. Rehearing Denied January 17, 1964. Kingsland, Rogers, Ezell Robbins, Estill E. Ezell, Edmund C. Rogers, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Olson, Trexler, Wolters Bushnell, Chicago, Ill. (Richard Bushnell, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This is an appeal by the opposer in a consolidated opposition and cancellation proceeding wherein the Patent Office Trademark Trial
R. Neumann Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery
326 F.2d 799 (C.C.P.A. 1964) Cited 6 times
Patent Appeal No. 7067. January 23, 1964. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Sidney A. Diamond, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Submitted on record by appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. R. Neumann Co. appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which dismissed appellant's opposition to application by Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., appellee, for registration of the term "VYNAHYDE" as a trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 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"

Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

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

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"

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

Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."

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

In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

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

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"