Restoration Games, LLC

12 Cited authorities

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 104 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
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"
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 24 times
Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
In re Shell Oil Co.
992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 35 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”
In re Jobdiva, Inc.
843 F.3d 936 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 4 times 2 Legal Analyses
2015-1960 12-12-2016 IN RE: JOBDIVA, INC., Appellant Daniel I. Schloss, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda. Mary Beth Walker, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Christina Hieber. Stoll, Circuit Judge. Daniel I. Schloss , Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Masahiro Noda . Mary
Stock Pot Restaurant, Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc.
737 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 32 times
In Stock Pot, the appellee was a dissolved Massachusetts corporation at the time it filed suit and therefore did not have capacity to sue under Massachusetts law.
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
In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.
837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"
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
Wilson v. Delaunay
245 F.2d 877 (C.C.P.A. 1957) Cited 11 times
In Wilson, the board similarly noted that, as between a company seeking to register "Newports" for women's shoes and a company selling outer shirts under the "Newport" brand, the singular form of Newport was materially indistinguishable under those circumstances.
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 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"

Restoration Games, LLC

12 Cited authorities

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

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

Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

In Stock Pot, the appellee was a dissolved Massachusetts corporation at the time it filed suit and therefore did not have capacity to sue under Massachusetts law.

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

Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

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

In Wilson, the board similarly noted that, as between a company seeking to register "Newports" for women's shoes and a company selling outer shirts under the "Newport" brand, the singular form of Newport was materially indistinguishable under those circumstances.

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"