§

Primavera Life GmbH v. Amorepacific Corporation

No. 91196106 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)
Primavera Life GmbH v. Amorepacific Corporation

17 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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"

  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. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  5. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.

    281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

  6. 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"

  7. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Federal Corp.

    673 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    No. 2010–1376. 2012-03-16 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC (formerly Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC) and Bridgestone Corporation, Appellants, v. FEDERAL CORPORATION, Appellee. Douglas A. Rettew, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Danny M. Awdeh. Everett E. Fruehling, Christensen, O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC, of Seattle, Washington, argued for appellee. NEWMAN Douglas A. Rettew, Finnegan

  8. 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

  9. Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland

    407 F.2d 881 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland Co., 407 F.2d 881, 888-89, 160 USPQ 715, 721 (CCPA 1969) the court stated that false suggestion requires the existence of likelihood of confusion.

  10. O-M Bread, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee

    65 F.3d 933 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that word mark "Olympic" was not sufficiently similar to "Olympic Kids" for purposes of satisfying Morehouse

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,280 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint