§

Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co.

No. 91181076 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2012)
Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions

    73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 236 times
    Holding that name "Spa`am'"s appearance in conjunction with the character likeness and the words "Muppet Treasure Island" created a dissimilarity that "alone" could defeat plaintiff's claim that its mark "SPAM" was being blurred in violation of dilution law

  2. Thane International, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp.

    305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 188 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the marks "Orbi-Trek" and "TREK" were nearly identical

  3. Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity

    507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 121 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys not to infringe on the venerable handbag maker's trademark

  4. 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"

  5. 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"

  6. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  7. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  8. Crash Dummy v. Mattel

    601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 28 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"

  9. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  10. 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"

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,651 times   326 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  12. 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"