Zinky Electronics

10 Cited authorities

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"
Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp.
624 F.2d 366 (1st Cir. 1980) Cited 150 times
Finding three and half years combined with striking differences between containers makes lack of actual confusion significant
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 73 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"
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"
CBS Inc. v. Morrow
708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 times
In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming likelihood of confusion
Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings
576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 12 times
Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations
Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody
286 F.2d 623 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 6628. February 8, 1961. Jacobi Jacobi, Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D.C. (Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Myron Amer, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code.
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 165,843 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,611 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"

Zinky Electronics

10 Cited authorities

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding three and half years combined with striking differences between containers makes lack of actual confusion significant

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"

Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

Affirming likelihood of confusion

Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

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"