§

Virola Int’l

No. 86957516 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2018)
Virola Int’l

18 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 108 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  4. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 25 times
    Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

  5. 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"

  6. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 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"

  7. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  8. In re Mighty Leaf Tea

    601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

  9. Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey

    659 F. App'x 55 (2d Cir. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment based in part on unrebutted expert testimony

  10. Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey

    95 F. Supp. 3d 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    No. 11 cv 7875(PAC). 2015-03-05 Simone KELLY–BROWN and Own Your Power Communications, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Oprah WINFREY, Harpo Productions, Inc., Harpo, Inc., Hearst Corporation, and Hearst Communications, Inc., Defendants. Patricia Lawrence–Kolaras, The PLK Law Group, P.C., Hillsborough, NJ, Fernando M. Pinguelo, Robert Levy, Scarinci & Hollenbeck, Lyndhurst, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Jonathan R. Donnellan, Kristina E. Findikyan, Ravi Viren Sitwala, Hearst Corporation, New York, NY, Amanda Z. Patrick

  11. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 3,226 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 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"