§

Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Chatam Int’l. Inc.

No. 91111896 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2000)
Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Chatam Int’l. Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc.

    540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a confusion rate of 15% was evidence of more than de minimis confusion

  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. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  4. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  5. James Burrough Ltd. v. Lesher, (S.D.Ind. 1969)

    309 F. Supp. 1154 (S.D. Ind. 1969)   Cited 15 times
    In James Burrough Ltd. v. Lesher, 309 F. Supp. 1154, 1159 (S.D. Ind. 1969), the Court relied in part on the defendants' polling evidence, which showed that 37 of 300 polled patrons (12.3 percent) thought the defendant's restaurant's name was related to Beefeater gin, to conclude on summary judgment that a likelihood of confusion existed.

  6. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  7. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 92,916 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint