Win Luck Trading, Inc. v. Northern Food I/E Inc. dba Northern Food

15 Cited authorities

Harris v. Rivera
454 U.S. 339 (1981) Cited 466 times
Holding that "[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding
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"
Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 30 times 5 Legal Analyses
Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"
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.”
E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. v. Yoshida Int'l.
393 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) Cited 83 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that survey results indicating that 68% of consumers viewed Teflon as a brand name rebutted the claim that the mark was generic
Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria
892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 13 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
In re Spirits Intern., N.V
563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 8 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.
994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 20 times
Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act
J.C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.
340 F.2d 960 (C.C.P.A. 1965) Cited 26 times
Patent Appeal No. 7310. February 11, 1965. Albert H. Kirchner, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Robert D. Hovey, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. J.C. Hall Company filed application to register "HALLMARK" for blank checks issued in single and book form, alleging use since April 17, 1933. Registration has been opposed by Hallmark Cards, Incorporated, alleging prior and continuous use of the identical term "HALLMARK"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 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 1057 - Certificates of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1057 Cited 1,027 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 888 times 48 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 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"

Win Luck Trading, Inc. v. Northern Food I/E Inc. dba Northern Food

15 Cited authorities

Holding that "[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

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"

Explaining that although the "Board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence," it cannot "disregard [evidence] without explanation" or "short-cut its consideration of the factual record before it"

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

Finding that survey results indicating that 68% of consumers viewed Teflon as a brand name rebutted the claim that the mark was generic

Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

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

Noting that “[t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area”

Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

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 a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

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"