§

Clover Leaf Trading Co.

No. 75853341 (T.T.A.B. May. 16, 2001)
Clover Leaf Trading Co.

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. 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

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. In re Wilson

    49 B.R. 952 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    Adv. No. 85-0033. June 12, 1985. Sam E. Loftin, Phenix City, Ala., for plaintiff. V. Cecil Curtis, Phenix City, Ala., for defendant/debtor. OPINION ON COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY ( 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)) RODNEY R. STEELE, Bankruptcy Judge. The plaintiff claims in this case that the defendant/debtor wilfully and maliciously shot him with a shotgun on June 19, 1982, and that the ensuing civil recovery in the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama in Case No. CV-82-261 in the sum of $100

  6. Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing

    473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged

  7. Forst Packing Co. v. C.W. Antrim Sons

    118 F.2d 576 (C.C.P.A. 1941)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 4462. March 31, 1941. Rehearing Denied June 9, 1941. Appeal from Commissioner of Patents of the United States Patent Office, Opposition No. 17,780. Trade-mark opposition proceeding wherein C.W. Antrim Sons filed notice of opposition to the registration of trade-mark applied for by the Forst Packing Company, Inc. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents of the United States Patent Office affirming decision of examiner of trade-mark interferences sustaining the notice of opposition

  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"