Uptown Wink LLC v. Procop International NV

18 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 193 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 76 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding 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 Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 27 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.
281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 34 times
Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 16 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
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
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"
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,921 times 127 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,615 times 274 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"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 24 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

Uptown Wink LLC v. Procop International NV

18 Cited authorities

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding 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"

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

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

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"

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"