14 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 191 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 73 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.
105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 34 timesHolding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America
970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 39 timesFinding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 13 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co.
667 F.2d 1005 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 8 timesAppeal No. 81-559. December 10, 1981. Ronald L. Panitch and Roberta L. Jacobs, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Jay J. Rice, Clifton, N. D., for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board") dismissing the opposition of appellant Franklin Mint Corporation ("Franklin")
San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.
565 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1977) Cited 11 timesAppeal No. 77-576. November 23, 1977. Rober C. Comstock, Los Angeles, Cal., of record, for appellant. Edward A. Meilman, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, New York City, of record, for appellee; Sidney G. Faber, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing an
Coca-Cola, Etc. v. Joseph E. Seagram Sons
526 F.2d 556 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 75-594. December 11, 1975. James H. Littlepage, Littlepage, Quaintance, Murphy Dobyns, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Edward J. Handler, III, Kenyon Kenyon Reilly Carr Chapin, New York City, attorney of record, for appellee; Ernest R. Brendel, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,612 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"