§

Coats & Clark Inc.

79236578 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2020)
Coats & Clark Inc.

23 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 Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  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. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  5. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  6. In re Mighty Leaf Tea

    601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

  7. In re Guild Mortg. Co.

    No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"

  8. 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

  9. In re Clorox Company Securities Litigation

    238 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    In Clorox the plaintiffs claimed that during an April 22, 1999 conference call Clorox materially misrepresented the financial health of one of its companies.

  10. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  11. 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"

  12. Section 1091 - Supplemental register

    15 U.S.C. § 1091   Cited 79 times
    Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"

  13. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"