Sun Management Services, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice
710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 88 times
Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them
In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.
837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 11 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"
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
Application of Marriott Corporation
517 F.2d 1364 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 10 times
Holding that "[t]he first user of a trademark in interstate commerce is entitled to federal registration of that mark," and so to determine "the right to registration . . . , the threshold consideration is that of first use in interstate commerce"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb, Inc.
442 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1971) Cited 9 times
Patent Appeal No. 8525. June 3, 1971. Paul L. Gomory, Washington, D.C., Jack E. Phillips, J. Arthur Young and Donald J. Quigg, Bartlesville, Okla., attorneys of record, for appellant. Edward C. Gonda, Arthur H. Seidel, Seidel, Gonda Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,608 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"

Sun Management Services, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

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

Application of Marriott Corporation

Holding that "[t]he first user of a trademark in interstate commerce is entitled to federal registration of that mark," and so to determine "the right to registration . . . , the threshold consideration is that of first use in interstate commerce"

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb, Inc.

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"