§

Pointivity v. ChannelVission, assignee of Aman Sehgal, formerly Sehgal Aman dba Channelvission, Inc.

No. 92055731 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2015)
Pointivity v. ChannelVission, assignee of Aman Sehgal, formerly Sehgal Aman dba Channelvission, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.

    861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 465 times
    Holding that "statements of fact contained in a brief may be considered admissions of the party in the discretion of the district court"

  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. 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"

  4. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.

    811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 41 times
    Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

  7. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  8. 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

  9. Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

    640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 20 times
    Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context

  10. Towers v. Advent Software, Inc.

    913 F.2d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 90-1097. September 6, 1990. Helen Hill Minsker, of Beveridge, DeGrandi Weilacher, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was John T. Roberts. James L. Warren, of Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Kevin M. Fong and Marina H. Park. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CONTI, Senior District Judge. Circuit

  11. Section 3.34 - Correction of cover sheet errors

    37 C.F.R. § 3.34

    (a) An error in a cover sheet recorded pursuant to § 3.11 will be corrected only if: (1) The error is apparent when the cover sheet is compared with the recorded document to which it pertains, and (2) A corrected cover sheet is filed for recordation. (b) The corrected cover sheet must be accompanied by a copy of the document originally submitted for recording and by the recording fee as set forth in § 3.41 . 37 C.F.R. §3.34 69 FR 29879, May 26, 2004 Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts