§

Angstrom Power, Inc.

No. 77110855 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2008)
Angstrom Power, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  2. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  3. Communications Satellite Corp. v. Comcet

    429 F.2d 1245 (4th Cir. 1970)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that plaintiff's promotion and use of the distinctive mark "Comsat" as an abbreviation for its company, together with frequent references to the company by the Comsat name in magazines and newspapers, was sufficient to support a finding that the name was a strong and protectable mark

  4. Synergistic International, LLC v. Korman

    402 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    In Synergistic Intern, LLC v. Korman, 402 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2005), the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case requested injunctive relief to prevent the defendant from using the similar mark in the future.

  5. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.

    902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

  6. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  7. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.

    565 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 77-576. November 23, 1977. Rober C. Comstock, Los Angeles, Cal., of record, for appellant. Edward A. Meilman, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, New York City, of record, for appellee; Sidney G. Faber, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing an

  8. Johann Maria Farina v. Chesebrough-Pond

    470 F.2d 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8779. December 29, 1972. Kenyon Kenyon, Reilly, Carr Chapin, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. William T. Boland, Jr., William J. Ungvarsky, Charles B. Spencer, New York City, of counsel. Rogers, Hoge Hills, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee. William F. Weigel, Marie V. Driscoll, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. MARKEY

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,605 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"