§

R&M Materials Handling, Inc.

No. 78660611 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2008)
R&M Materials Handling, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. 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

  3. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  4. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 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"

  5. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"

  6. Wincharger Corporation v. Rinco, Inc.

    297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 17 times
    In Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962), for example, which concerned the sophistication of technicians in the field of electrical devices, the court stated that while technicians are "a discriminating group of people [b]eing skilled in their own art does not necessarily preclude their mistaking one trademark for another...."

  7. New England Fish Company v. Hervin Company

    511 F.2d 562 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-549. February 27, 1975. William P. Cole, Philadelphia, Pa. (Synnestvedt Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa.) attorneys of record, for appellant. Jacob E. Vilhauer, Jr., Portland, Ore., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. New England Fish Company, owner of the mark KITTY for cat food, appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing

  8. Hammermill Paper Co. v. Gulf States Paper

    337 F.2d 662 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7181. November 5, 1964. Charles L. Lovercheck, Erie, Pa., for appellant. Raphael Semmes, Washington, D.C. (G. Mallet Prevost, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge Worley, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code. RICH

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 times   274 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"