§
Andre Maurice

23 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 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"

  6. 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

  7. Knowles-Carter v. Feyonce, Inc.

    347 F. Supp. 3d 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    16-CV-2532 (AJN) 09-30-2018 Beyoncé Giselle KNOWLES-CARTER, et al., Plaintiff, v. FEYONCE, INC. et al., Defendants. Marvin S. Putnam, Laura R. Washington, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. Leana Lopez, San Antonio, TX, pro se. Andre Maurice, San Antonio, TX, pro se. ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge Marvin S. Putnam, Laura R. Washington, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. Leana Lopez, San Antonio, TX, pro se. Andre Maurice, San Antonio, TX, pro

  8. In re Trans Texas

    498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Patent Office is not bound by district court claim construction because Patent Office was not a party to the district court proceeding

  9. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc.

    901 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    2018-1688 08-27-2018 ZHENG CAI, DBA Tai Chi Green Tea Inc., Appellant v. DIAMOND HONG, INC., Appellee Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Hughes, Circuit Judges

  10. In re Chatam International Inc.

    380 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,873 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,003 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,597 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"

  14. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty