§

Ultratan Suntanning Centers, Inc. v. Ultra Tan Int'l. AB

No. 91100319 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 1998)
Ultratan Suntanning Centers, Inc. v. Ultra Tan Int'l. AB

7 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. Massey Junior Col. v. Fas. Inst. of Tech

    492 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that conflicting marks need to be analyzed in their entirety even when sharing a prominent feature

  3. SCM Corp. v. Langis Foods Ltd.

    539 F.2d 196 (D.C. Cir. 1976)   Cited 12 times
    In SCM Corp. v. Langis Foods Ltd., 539 F.2d 196 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the D.C. Circuit addressed a dispute over the priority of trademark rights resulting from an application under the then-applicable version of § 44. Langis, a Canadian company, and SCM, a U.S. company, both claimed rights in the trademark "Lemon Tree," as used in fruit beverages.

  4. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent 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)

  5. Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller

    477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion

  6. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Industries

    518 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 3 times
    In Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1975) the court explained that "While the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods or service should, in appropriate cases, be considered in determining likelihood of confusion... the law has long protected the legitimate interests of trademark owners from confusion among noncompetitive, but related, products bearing confusingly similar marks."

  7. David Crystal, Inc. v. Shelburne Shirt Co.

    465 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8678. September 14, 1972. Edward C. Gonda, Joel S. Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa. (Seidel, Gonda Goldhammer), Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellant. Myron Cohen, Maurice B. Stiefel, New York City (Hubbell, Cohen Stiefel), New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee; Jules E. Goldberg, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States