The Brooklyn Brewery Corporation v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC

52 Cited authorities

Duluth News-Tribune v. a Mesabi Publishing Co.
84 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 1996) Cited 185 times
Holding that “even several isolated incidents of actual confusion” are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.
977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 175 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that wholesale copying of copyrighted code as a preliminary step to develop a competing product was a fair use
Profitness Phy. Therapy v. Pro-Fit Orthopedic
314 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 126 times
Vacating summary judgment for defendant
Coach House Rest. v. Coach and Six Rest
934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991) Cited 146 times
Holding that a likelihood of confusion furnishes one ground for cancelling a registration
Caliber v. Premier
605 F.3d 931 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 82 times
Holding that district court erred in holding that a mark with incontestable status was not entitled to strong protection
Sebastian Intern. v. Longs Drug Stores
53 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 115 times
Holding that where a party places a "collective mark on its products, it is primarily responsible for any confusion that result from the mark's assertion of affiliation, and that confusion cannot be used to support a charge of infringement"
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 192 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 73 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"
On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online
229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 78 times
Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 96,222 times 94 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
Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 802 Cited 4,082 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,613 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"
Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings
15 U.S.C. § 1069 Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"
Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation
15 U.S.C. § 1068 Cited 25 times 3 Legal Analyses
Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"

The Brooklyn Brewery Corporation v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC

52 Cited authorities

Holding that “even several isolated incidents of actual confusion” are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion

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

Holding that wholesale copying of copyrighted code as a preliminary step to develop a competing product was a fair use

Vacating summary judgment for defendant

Holding that a likelihood of confusion furnishes one ground for cancelling a registration

Holding that district court erred in holding that a mark with incontestable status was not entitled to strong protection

Holding that where a party places a "collective mark on its products, it is primarily responsible for any confusion that result from the mark's assertion of affiliation, and that confusion cannot be used to support a charge of infringement"

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

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"

Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

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

Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

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"

Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"

Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"