The Coca-Cola Company

8 Cited authorities

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"
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 74 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
In re Coors Brewing Co.
343 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 15 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that beer and restaurant services are not sufficiently related to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion
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”
Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 10 times
Finding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods
Rockwood Chocolate Co. v. Hoffman Candy Co.
372 F.2d 552 (C.C.P.A. 1967) Cited 10 times
Patent Appeal No. 7712. February 16, 1967. A.D. Caesar, Alan H. Bernstein, Stanley H. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. G. Cabell Busick, Henry W. Leeds, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in consolidated opposition and cancellation proceedings
New England Fish Company v. Hervin Company
511 F.2d 562 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 74-549. February 27, 1975. William P. Cole, Philadelphia, Pa. (Synnestvedt Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa.) attorneys of record, for appellant. Jacob E. Vilhauer, Jr., Portland, Ore., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. New England Fish Company, owner of the mark KITTY for cat food, appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,616 times 275 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"

The Coca-Cola Company

8 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

Holding that beer and restaurant services are not sufficiently related to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion

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”

Finding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods

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"