§

b. Dazzle, Inc.

No. 76624697 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2007)
b. Dazzle, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc.

    599 F.2d 1126 (2d Cir. 1979)   Cited 448 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that purchasers of women's sportswear were "sophisticated and knowledgeable."

  2. Vitarroz v. Borden, Inc.

    644 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. 1981)   Cited 176 times
    Holding that the court will not "permit the pleader of an ambiguous claim to assert his preference for a state forum after a set of facts that can be pleaded as a federal claim has been removed to federal court and allowed to remain there for some period of time."

  3. 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"

  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. Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Beamish & Crawford Ltd.

    937 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of likelihood of confusion in a prior cancellation proceeding was sufficiently different from the issue of likelihood of confusion presented in subsequent litigation such that the Board's finding did not have preclusive effect

  6. J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  7. 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

  8. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  9. 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

  10. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Kinney Shoe Corp.

    453 F. Supp. 1352 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    No. 78 Civ. 2095 (KTD). July 24, 1978. As Amended July 27, 1978. Arthur, Dry Kalish, P. C., New York City, for plaintiff by Harvey E. Bumgardner, Jr., Philip L. Rodman, Jeffrey M. Greenman, New York City, of counsel. Kenyon, Kenyon, Reilly, Carr Chapin, New York City, for defendants by William T. Boland, Jr., Charles R. Brainard, New York City, of counsel. Armstrong Bray, New York City, for defendants by John K. Armstrong, Timothy W. Ulrich, New York City, of counsel. OPINION AND ORDER KEVIN THOMAS