9 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Application of Hartop
311 F.2d 249 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 24 timesHolding that the utility of a pharmaceutical invention sufficient to premise patentability does not depend on absolute proof of safety
AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.
474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 13 timesHolding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"
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)
Wincharger Corporation v. Rinco, Inc.
297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 17 timesIn Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962), for example, which concerned the sophistication of technicians in the field of electrical devices, the court stated that while technicians are "a discriminating group of people [b]eing skilled in their own art does not necessarily preclude their mistaking one trademark for another...."
Smith Brothers Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co.
476 F.2d 1004 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 8947. April 19, 1973. George R. Douglas, Jr. (Misegades Douglas), Washington, D.C., attorneys of record for appellant; Sherman Levy, Washington, D.C., of counsel. B.P. Fishburne, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ltd. v. Zip Hosiery Co.
405 F.2d 575 (C.C.P.A. 1969) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 8070. January 9, 1969. Seidel Gonda, Edward C. Gonda, Ronald L. Panitch, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Wood, Herron Evans, Bruce Tittel, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Izod, Ltd. appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to the trademark application of Zip Hosiery Company, Inc., appellee, for registration of the mark "TIGER HEAD" for men's work socks. Appellant
Shunk Manufacturing Co. v. Tarrant Mfg. Co.
318 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1963) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 6896. June 10, 1963. Frank M. Slough and J.H. Slough, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Luther W. Hawley, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge, Appellant, Shunk Manufacturing Company, filed a trademark application to register a figure, designated as a Scotsman, as a trademark for heavy duty equipment, such as graders and other ground working machines, blades therefor, sand spreaders, etc. The trademark
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 94,339 times 92 Legal AnalysesFinding 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