§

Boot Royalty Co., L. P.

No. 75938995 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2001)
Boot Royalty Co., L. P.

8 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 Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  3. 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"

  4. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.

    837 F.2d 463 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between furniture and "general merchandise store services," and rejecting the distinction between goods and services as having "little or no legal significance"

  5. 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

  6. Feed Service Corp. v. FS Services, Inc.

    432 F.2d 478 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8349. October 29, 1970. Thomas Cifelli, Jr., William E. Hedges, Richards Cifelli, Newark, N.J., attorneys of record, for appellant. Richard Bushnell, Olson, Trexler, Wolters Bushnell, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 255 (1967), which sustained two oppositions brought by appellee

  7. Helena Rubinstein, Inc. v. Hudnut

    193 F.2d 207 (C.C.P.A. 1951)

    Patent Appeals No. 5831. December 18, 1951. Otto Nordon, New York City, for appellant. Robert B. Clark, New York City, (Arnold B. Christen, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellee. Before JACKSON, Acting Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. WORLEY, Judge. This is an appeal in a trade-mark opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, 86 U.S.P.Q. 221, sustaining the decision of the Examiner of Interferences adjudging that applicant is not entitled

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,606 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"