§

Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Kay Guitar Co.

No. 91154392 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2004)
Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Kay Guitar Co.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab

    335 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that the marks VIRGIN and VIRGIN WIRELESS were, in light of the strength of the VIRGIN mark, similar enough to weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion because, in addition to using the same first word VIRGIN, the context in which consumers experienced the plaintiff's mark, including through radio advertisements, nullified the marks' visual dissimilarities

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  4. 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"

  5. 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”

  6. J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  7. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 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

  8. 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)

  9. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb, Inc.

    442 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8525. June 3, 1971. Paul L. Gomory, Washington, D.C., Jack E. Phillips, J. Arthur Young and Donald J. Quigg, Bartlesville, Okla., attorneys of record, for appellant. Edward C. Gonda, Arthur H. Seidel, Seidel, Gonda Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

  10. Polaroid Corporation v. Richard Mfg. Co.

    341 F.2d 150 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7248. February 11, 1965. Donald L. Brown, Cambridge, Mass., for appellant. Munson H. Lane, Conder C. Henry, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Polaroid Corporation appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 137 USPQ 488, dismissing its opposition to application of Richard Manufacturing Company for registration of the mark "POLY-VUE" for filmstrip or slidefilm projectors.