17 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 188 times 30 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 24 timesReviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 26 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 33 timesHolding 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”
In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.
105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 33 timesHolding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services
M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, Inc.
450 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 14 times 2 Legal AnalysesUpholding board's finding of no likelihood of confusion between marks after finding that parties' multimedia CD-Roms were not similar and had different channels of trade; one party's product was used strictly in the film and music industries and the other's was used in the fields of pharmacy and medicine.
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Federal Corp.
673 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 8 timesNo. 2010–1376. 2012-03-16 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC (formerly Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC) and Bridgestone Corporation, Appellants, v. FEDERAL CORPORATION, Appellee. Douglas A. Rettew, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Danny M. Awdeh. Everett E. Fruehling, Christensen, O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC, of Seattle, Washington, argued for appellee. NEWMAN Douglas A. Rettew, Finnegan
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 11 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
In re Bose Corp.
772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 30 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 271 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 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation
15 U.S.C. § 1068 Cited 25 times 3 Legal AnalysesStating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"