§

Rhythm Holding Limited v. Rhythm Interactive, Inc.

No. 91213331 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2015)
Rhythm Holding Limited v. Rhythm Interactive, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  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. Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.

    236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times
    Finding no error because, "while the Board did not make explicit findings about the strength of the [opposer’s mark], the Board’s opinion reveals that the Board considered this factor"

  6. 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”

  7. Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd.

    393 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that textually identical "RITZ" marks used in cooking classes and kitchen textiles were dissimilar

  8. In re Coors Brewing Co.

    343 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 15 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that beer and restaurant services are not sufficiently related to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion

  9. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  10. 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