Sloppy Joe's Int'l, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc.
894 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 238 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial use of photographs of Babe Ruth did not indicate origin or make representation of sponsorship and granting summary judgment for defendants where plaintiff devisees essentially asserted trademark in Babe Ruth's image and likeness
Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc.
652 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 130 times
Holding that, absent certain circumstances not relevant here, we will conclusively defer to a federal court of appeals's interpretation of the law of a state that is within its circuit
Lugosi v. Universal Pictures
25 Cal.3d 813 (Cal. 1979) Cited 111 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that actor Bela Lugosi had a right, during his lifetime, to his name and likeness
Estate of Presley v. Russen
513 F. Supp. 1339 (D.N.J. 1981) Cited 103 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the right of publicity is descendible
McFarland v. Miller
14 F.3d 912 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 46 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the estate of James McFarland could sustain a claim for misappropriation based on a restaurant's use of the name "Spanky McFarland's"
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.
Ltd. v. Zip Hosiery Co.
405 F.2d 575 (C.C.P.A. 1969) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 8070. January 9, 1969. Seidel Gonda, Edward C. Gonda, Ronald L. Panitch, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Wood, Herron Evans, Bruce Tittel, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Izod, Ltd. appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to the trademark application of Zip Hosiery Company, Inc., appellee, for registration of the mark "TIGER HEAD" for men's work socks. Appellant
Shunk Manufacturing Co. v. Tarrant Mfg. Co.
318 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1963) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 6896. June 10, 1963. Frank M. Slough and J.H. Slough, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Luther W. Hawley, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge, Appellant, Shunk Manufacturing Company, filed a trademark application to register a figure, designated as a Scotsman, as a trademark for heavy duty equipment, such as graders and other ground working machines, blades therefor, sand spreaders, etc. The trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 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"

Sloppy Joe's Int'l, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding commercial use of photographs of Babe Ruth did not indicate origin or make representation of sponsorship and granting summary judgment for defendants where plaintiff devisees essentially asserted trademark in Babe Ruth's image and likeness

Holding that, absent certain circumstances not relevant here, we will conclusively defer to a federal court of appeals's interpretation of the law of a state that is within its circuit

Holding that actor Bela Lugosi had a right, during his lifetime, to his name and likeness

Holding that the right of publicity is descendible

Holding that the estate of James McFarland could sustain a claim for misappropriation based on a restaurant's use of the name "Spanky McFarland's"

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.

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"