§

Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Edataforce Consulting, LLC

No. 92054039 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2014)
Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Edataforce Consulting, LLC

13 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 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"

  3. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 27 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"

  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. J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  6. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 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 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  9. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 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

  10. J.C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.

    340 F.2d 960 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7310. February 11, 1965. Albert H. Kirchner, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Robert D. Hovey, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. J.C. Hall Company filed application to register "HALLMARK" for blank checks issued in single and book form, alleging use since April 17, 1933. Registration has been opposed by Hallmark Cards, Incorporated, alleging prior and continuous use of the identical term "HALLMARK"

  11. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 934 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  12. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 149 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"