§

Lucent Technologies, Inc.

No. 75045569 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 1999)
Lucent Technologies, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Astra Pharmaceutical, v. Beckman Instruments

    718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  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. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter Gamble Co.

    434 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1970)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that a mark had not been abandoned when the trademark holder offered a legitimate reason for making only nominal sales, namely waiting for trademark ownership issues to be fully litigated and resolved

  4. 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"

  5. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  6. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

    748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

  7. Dynamics Research Corp. v. Langenau Mfg. Co.

    704 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 5 times
    In Dynamics Research Corp. v. Langenau Manufacturing Co., 704 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court affirmed the TTAB's finding that there was no likelihood of confusion because, although the parties both used the mark "DRC," they sold entirely different products (appellant sold gauges for press brakes and appellee sold sheet metal fabric) to different companies in different industries.

  8. Industrial Nucleonics Corporation v. Hinde

    475 F.2d 1197 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8858. April 5, 1973. Edward M. Prince, William T. Bullinger (Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C.), attorneys of record, for appellant. William T. Fryer, III, Baltimore, Md., of counsel. Jack M. Wiseman (Rosenberg Wiseman, San Jose, Cal.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and WATSON, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This

  9. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,593 times   273 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"

  11. 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