§

Target Brands, Inc. v. IQA Products, LLC

No. 91204357 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2015)
Target Brands, Inc. v. IQA Products, LLC

13 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    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"

  4. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  5. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  6. Action Temporary Services v. Labor Force

    870 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 88-1446. March 23, 1989. J. Rodman Steele, Steele, Gould Fried, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory A. Nelson. Jonathan E. Jobe, Jr., Hubbard, Thurman, Turner Tucker, Dallas, Tex., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Molly Buck Richard. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this concurrent use proceeding, the

  7. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 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"

  8. 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

  9. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  10. Ltd. v. Zip Hosiery Co.

    405 F.2d 575 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8070. January 9, 1969. Seidel Gonda, Edward C. Gonda, Ronald L. Panitch, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Wood, Herron Evans, Bruce Tittel, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Izod, Ltd. appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to the trademark application of Zip Hosiery Company, Inc., appellee, for registration of the mark "TIGER HEAD" for men's work socks. Appellant

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"