§

Technical College System of Georgia v. Louisiana Economic Development

No. 91191683 (T.T.A.B. May. 29, 2012)
Technical College System of Georgia v. Louisiana Economic Development

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    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"

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 75 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 Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  6. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  7. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  8. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  9. Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co.

    667 F.2d 1005 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    Appeal No. 81-559. December 10, 1981. Ronald L. Panitch and Roberta L. Jacobs, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Jay J. Rice, Clifton, N. D., for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board") dismissing the opposition of appellant Franklin Mint Corporation ("Franklin")

  10. 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)

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,434 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  13. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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"

  14. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination