Summit Entertainment, LLC

21 Cited authorities

Sands, Taylor Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.
978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 290 times 3 Legal Analyses
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.
841 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 150 times
Holding that "reverse confusion . . . is actionable under § 43 of the Lanham Act"
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 191 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Ameritech, v. American Inf. Technologies Corp.
811 F.2d 960 (6th Cir. 1987) Cited 127 times
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
DeCosta v. Viacom Intern., Inc.
981 F.2d 602 (1st Cir. 1992) Cited 76 times
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
794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 29 times 2 Legal Analyses
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
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 26 times
Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 26 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"
In re Shell Oil Co.
992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 35 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”
M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, Inc.
450 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 14 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding board's finding of no likelihood of confusion between marks after finding that parties' multimedia CD-Roms were not similar and had different channels of trade; one party's product was used strictly in the film and music industries and the other's was used in the fields of pharmacy and medicine.
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"
Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation
15 U.S.C. § 1068 Cited 25 times 3 Legal Analyses
Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"
Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities
37 C.F.R. § 2.71 Cited 12 times 3 Legal Analyses
The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified

Summit Entertainment, LLC

21 Cited authorities

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

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

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

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

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"

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"

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

Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

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"

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