§

Teleflex Inc.

No. 76279966 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2004)
Teleflex Inc.

6 Cited authorities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  3. 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

  4. TBC Corp. v. Holsa, Inc.

    126 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    No. 96-1140 DECIDED: October 9, 1997 Appealed from: Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. (Opposition No. 84,567) Marsha G. Gentner, Jacobson, Price, Holman Stern, P.L.L.C., of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was Leesa N. Weiss. William R. Golden, Jr., of Kelley Drye Warren, of New York, New York, argued for appellee. Before RICH, NEWMAN, and RADER, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RICH. Circuit Judge RADER dissents

  5. 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

  6. Application of Pneumatiques, Caoutchouc Man

    487 F.2d 918 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9067. November 15, 1973. Paul M. Craig, Jr., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, for the Commissioner of Patents, R. V. Lupo, of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (abstracted at 170 USPQ 543) affirming the examiner's refusal to register appellant's mark for