§

Wyeth v. Walgreen Co.

No. 91165912 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2008)
Wyeth v. Walgreen Co.

28 Cited authorities

  1. Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp.

    111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 204 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly admitted statements regarding consumer confusion because they were not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted and were offered to show the state of mind of the declarant

  2. Weight Watchers Intern. v. Luigino's, Inc.

    423 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 97 times
    Determining that Luigino's "use of the term 'Points' on the front" of its packaging "was likely to confuse consumers into believing that Weight Watchers had determined the point values or otherwise endorsed the Luigino's products"

  3. Selox v. Fausek

    506 U.S. 1034 (1992)   Cited 32 times

    No. 92-708. December 14, 1992. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 965 F. 2d 126.

  4. Conopco, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co.

    46 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of equivalents "cannot be used to erase 'meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.'"

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  6. 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"

  7. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

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

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 86 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

  9. 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.”

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

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,802 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,582 times   268 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"

  13. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,025 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark