12 Cited authorities
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Data Concepts, Inc. v. Digital Consulting
150 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 1998) Cited 49 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "DCI" and "dci" were too dissimilar to support tacking
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.
175 F.R.D. 640 (C.D. Cal. 1997) Cited 41 timesFinding that "[d]omain names, like trade names, do not act as trademarks when they are used to identify a business entity; in order to infringe they must be used to identify the source of goods or services" and "where . . . the pure machine-linking function is the only use at issue, there is no trademark use and there can be no infringement."
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 timesHolding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac
77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 29 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services
Young v. AGB Corp.
152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 20 timesNo. 98-1055 DECIDED: August 17, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Sharon Dinwiddie, Burke Blue, P.A., of Panama City, Florida, argued for appellant. On the brief was Edward A. Hutchinson, Jr. Pamela Ann Bresnahan, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Cory M. Amron. Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. John
Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.
823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 24 timesFinding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”
King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen
496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)
Anderson, Clayton and Company v. Krier
478 F.2d 1246 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 2 timesRecognizing that whatever benefits a federal registration confers are lost when that registration is canceled
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,606 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 148 times 19 Legal AnalysesIdentifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"