§

The Clorox Company v. Hermilo Tamez Salazar

No. 91198922 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)
The Clorox Company v. Hermilo Tamez Salazar

12 Cited authorities

  1. Buti v. Perosa

    139 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 95 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the mere advertising or promotion of a mark in the United States is insufficient to constitute 'use' of the mark 'in commerce'"

  2. 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"

  3. Aycock Eng. v. Airflite

    560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's preparation to use the mark was insufficient to constitute use in commerce

  4. General Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat

    364 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2004)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that plaintiff “failed to establish the necessary factual predicate for his trademark-cancellation claim” because he had never used the challenged mark in commerce

  5. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  6. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  7. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  8. Avakoff v. Southern Pacific Co.

    765 F.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that an interstate shipment of trademarked goods from the manufacturer to the trademark owner was "purely a delivery of the goods to applicant from the manufacturer.... That is, it was a shipment of the goods in preparation for offering the goods for sale. It did not make the goods available to the purchasing public. Without more, this type of shipment is clearly not activity amounting to a sale or transportation of the goods in commerce and does not constitute a bona fide shipment sufficient to lay a foundation for federal registration."

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 334,390 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,843 times   125 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  11. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,995 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,595 times   273 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"