§

USF&G Corp.

No. 74716462 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2004)
USF&G Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  3. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  4. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  5. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

  6. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  7. Wincharger Corporation v. Rinco, Inc.

    297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 17 times
    In 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...."

  8. Eastern Industries, Inc. v. Waterous Co.

    289 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6698. June 9, 1961. G. Cabell Busick, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., and Kane, Dalsimer Kane, New York City (Phillip T. Dalsimer, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Y. Houghton, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 124 USPQ 520, which dismissed an opposition to the registration of Electro-Matic on the Principal

  9. 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"