§

Prairie Island Indian Community v. Treasure Island Corporation

No. 91115866 (T.T.A.B. May. 15, 2008)
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Treasure Island Corporation

16 Cited authorities

  1. Coach House Rest. v. Coach and Six Rest

    934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that a likelihood of confusion furnishes one ground for cancelling a registration

  2. Versa Products Co. v. Bifold Co.

    50 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that deliberate intent to copy does not support finding a likelihood of confusion in product configuration cases unless a "product's labeling and marketing are also affirmatively misleading"

  3. 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"

  4. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  5. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  6. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 30 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  7. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  8. Mirage Resorts, Inc. v. Stirpe

    152 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Nev. 2000)   Cited 3 times
    Denying summary judgment even though no opposition memorandum was filed

  9. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Koury Corp.

    776 F. Supp. 240 (E.D.N.C. 1991)   Cited 9 times

    No. 90-70-CIV-5-BR. July 23, 1991. Douglas Wayne Kenyon, Arthur James DeBaugh, Hunton Williams, Raleigh, N.C., for plaintiff. Larry L. Coats, Rhodes, Coats Bennett, Raleigh, N.C., Hubert Humphrey, Greensboro, N.C., David Ernest Bennett, Rhodes, Coats and Bennett, Raleigh, N.C., for defendant and counter-claimant. Douglas Wayne Kenyon, Arthur James DeBaugh, Hunton Williams, Raleigh, N.C., for counter-defendant. ORDER BRITT, District Judge. This matter is before the court for decision following a two-day

  10. Source Serv. Corp. v. Source Telecomputing

    635 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    In Source Services, 635 F. Supp. at 606 SSC introduced some evidence of actual confusion: testimony by two consumers who said they responded primarily to the "source" element in the parties' marks.

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,704 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,800 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,580 times   260 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"

  14. Section 1058 - Duration, affidavits and fees

    15 U.S.C. § 1058   Cited 238 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Providing a ten-year duration for registered marks