§

Mark P. Spera, Jr.

88673937 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)
Mark P. Spera, Jr.

15 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. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC

    794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"

  5. 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

  6. 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"

  7. 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"

  8. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  9. In re Guild Mortg. Co.

    No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"

  10. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  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