§

Regions Asset Company v. Regional Acceptance Corporation

No. 91155302 (T.T.A.B. May. 1, 2009)
Regions Asset Company v. Regional Acceptance Corporation

22 Cited authorities

  1. Freedom Card, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase Co.

    432 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 138 times
    Finding no error in the district court's reliance upon the expert's testimony and conclusion that consumers exercise care in the selection of a credit card

  2. Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston

    628 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that two companies involved in car care had "a strong similarity between their wares and services" even though one sold car parts and the other did not

  3. 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"

  4. 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"

  5. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

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

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 87 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

  7. 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"

  8. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  9. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  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 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"