§

Single Figure Golfer Limited

No. 77017628 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2009)
Single Figure Golfer Limited

11 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 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"

  3. In re Chatam International Inc.

    380 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted

  4. 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

  5. B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design

    846 F.2d 727 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 22 times
    Relying on fourteen registrations issued between 1906 to 1983 and stating that dictionaries defined "B.V.D." as a trademark used for underwear

  6. 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.

  7. SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.

    697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

  8. 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

  9. Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp.

    376 F.2d 324 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7754. April 27, 1967. Robert C. Garber, Harvey B. Jacobson, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Harold R. Regan, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. KIRKPATRICK, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 145 USPQ 232, sustaining appellee's opposition to appellant's application

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,911 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,608 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"