§

Scientific Solutions, Inc. v. Scientific Solutions, LLC

No. 92051031 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2012)
Scientific Solutions, Inc. v. Scientific Solutions, LLC

10 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 74 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. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  5. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  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. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  8. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  9. 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

  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"