§

The Pilot Funds

No. 74551253 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 1998)
The Pilot Funds

11 Cited authorities

  1. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  2. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  3. Wachovia Bank Trust v. Crown Nation Bancorporation

    835 F. Supp. 882 (W.D.N.C. 1993)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. C-C-89-336-MU April 15, 1993. Floyd A. Gibson, Bell Seltzer Park Gibson, Charlotte, NC, for plaintiff. Dalbert U. Shefte, Shefte, Pinckney Sawyer, Charlotte, NC, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION GRAHAM MULLEN, Chief Judge, District. Findings of Fact 1. This is an action for service mark infringement, false designation of origin, and related unfair competition arising under the trademark laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and applicable North Carolina trademark and unfair

  4. Amalgamated Bank, N.Y. v. Amalgamated Trust

    842 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    No. 87-1526. March 23, 1988. Donald A. Kaul of Brownstein, Zeidman and Schomer, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant. Robert W. Sacoff of Pattishall, McAuliffe Hofstetter, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee Amalgamated Trust. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee PTO. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., and Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol. Appeal from the Trademark and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit

  5. Hancock v. Am. Steel Wire Co. of N.J

    203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 30 times
    Holding infringer's use of "Tornado" on wire fencing carried identical meaning to protected user's "Cyclone"

  6. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

  7. Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co.

    223 F.2d 485 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 10 times
    In Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co., 223 F.2d 485, 487, 42 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1001, the involved marks were "Railbird" and "Game Bird," and the Assistant Commissioner had held that "`* * * the marks of both parties are apparently always used in conjunction with the more familiar and better known trade-marks "Dobbs" (opposer's) and "Stetson" and device (applicant's), thereby eliminating likelihood that purchasers would be confused, misled or deceived into believing that the hats so marked emanate from the same source; * * *."

  8. Burton-Dixie Corporation v. Restonic Corp.

    234 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding that "necessary" assumption that mark will continue to be used in conjunction with primary mark "could be justified only if each party had no legal right to use his registered mark by itself"

  9. Sealy, Incorporated v. Simmons Company

    265 F.2d 934 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6420. April 22, 1959. Gerrit P. Groen, Wm. Marshall Lee, and Byron, Hume, Groen Clement, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Cyril A. Soans, William E. Anderson, and Soans, Anderson, Luedeka Fitch, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Acting C.J., and RICH, MARTIN and JOHNSON (retired), JJ. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the Assistant Commissioner, reversing the Examiner of Interferences and dismissing an opposition

  10. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 28,568 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,584 times   270 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"