New Hampshire v. Maine

Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

Sands, Taylor Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.

Holding that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark to market a similar isotonic beverage was likely to cause confusion

Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.

Holding that "reverse confusion . . . is actionable under § 43 of the Lanham Act"

Selox v. Fausek

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Ameritech, v. American Inf. Technologies Corp.

Holding that there is a public interest in preventing consumer confusion and deception in the marketplace and protecting the trademark holder's property interest in the mark

Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

Finding 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"

DeCosta v. Viacom Intern., Inc.

Holding that, where the court had already presumed secondary meaning, USPTO registration "adds nothing significantly new" and that the Lanham Act does not "make it easier for a registrant . . . to prove that a relevant buying public may confuse some other person's mark with his own"

Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC

Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"

Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"

Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation

Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"