American Automobile Ass'n v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C.

Holding the district court erred in excluding defendant's responses to plaintiff's requests for admissions where plaintiff "included the admissions in its pretrial order as `undisputed issues of fact,' introduced the admissions into evidence at trial and relied on them in support of its case"

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

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"

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

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

Ritchie v. Simpson

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

In re Viterra Inc.

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"

Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.

In Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.

Rule 36 - Requests for Admission

Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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 1151 - Purpose of chapter

Section 2.120 - Discovery

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"