§

Star-Brite Distributing, Inc.

No. 77762719 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)
Star-Brite Distributing, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 566 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 38 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  4. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  5. Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc.

    9 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times

    No. 93-1204. November 17, 1993. Howard P. Peck, Atty., Abelman, Frayne Schwab, New York City, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Julianne Abelman. Mark F. Harrington, Atty., Perman Green, Fairfield, CT, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before RICH, MAYER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) which both sustained and dismissed

  6. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 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.

  7. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

  8. Smithkline Beckman Corp. v. Pennex Products Co.

    605 F. Supp. 746 (E.D. Pa. 1985)   Cited 10 times

    Civ. A. No. 84-0913. February 21, 1985. James R. Meyer, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs. Steven R. Trost, New York City, for Pennex Products Co., Inc. — defendants. Stuart E. Beck, Philadelphia, Pa., for Gray Drug Fair Stores, Inc. — third party defendant. Mark M. Wilcox, Philadelphia, Pa., for Consumer Value Stores — third party defendant. Barry E. Ungar, Philadelphia, Pa., for Rite Aid Corp. — third party defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JAMES MEGIRR KELLY, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Smithkline

  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. In re Research and Trading Corp.

    793 F.2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Appeal No. 86-705. June 12, 1986. Peter J. Georges, of Russell, Georges, Brenenman, Hellwege Yee, Arlington, Va., for appellant. Nancy C. Slutter, of the Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for Com'r of Patents and Trademarks. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor, Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor and Julie Seyler, Trademark Examining Atty. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before SMITH, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge

  11. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty

  12. Section 2.64 - Reinstatement of applications and registrations abandoned, cancelled, or expired due to Office error

    37 C.F.R. § 2.64

    (a)Request for Reinstatement of an Abandoned Application. The applicant may file a written request to reinstate an application abandoned due to Office error. There is no fee for a request for reinstatement. (1)Deadline. The applicant must file the request by not later than: (i) Two months after the issue date of the notice of abandonment; or (ii) Two months after the date of actual knowledge of the abandonment and not later than six months after the date the trademark electronic records system indicates