§
SmartMo-ney

12 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 194 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. 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"

  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. Bongrain Intern. v. Delice de France, Inc.

    811 F.2d 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 15 times
    Assigning "great weight" to the parties' trademark co-existence agreement, "which would give both of them the advantages of registration"

  5. In re Four Seasons Hotels Ltd.

    987 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-1222. March 9, 1993. Anthony L. Fletcher, Hunton Williams, New York City, argued, for appellant. Linda M. Skoro, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With her on the brief, were Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. and Albin F. Drost, Deputy Sol. Of counsel, were Richard E. Schafer, John W. Dewhirst and Lee E. Barrett. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office. Before RICH, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PLAGER

  6. 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

  7. In re N.A.D. Inc.

    754 F.2d 996 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    Appeal No. 84-1215. February 14, 1985. Stanley H. Cohen (argued), Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein Cohen, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick (argued), Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, RICH and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from

  8. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

    534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"

  9. Amalgamated Bank, N.Y. v. Amalgamated Trust

    842 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    No. 87-1526. March 23, 1988. Donald A. Kaul of Brownstein, Zeidman and Schomer, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant. Robert W. Sacoff of Pattishall, McAuliffe Hofstetter, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee Amalgamated Trust. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee PTO. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., and Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol. Appeal from the Trademark and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit

  10. Hancock v. Am. Steel Wire Co. of N.J

    203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 30 times
    Holding infringer's use of "Tornado" on wire fencing carried identical meaning to protected user's "Cyclone"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 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"