Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
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"
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
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
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times
Affirming likelihood of confusion
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.
697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 12 times
Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”
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
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. National Steel Construction Co.
442 F.2d 1383 (C.C.P.A. 1971) Cited 4 times
Patent Appeal No. 8527. June 10, 1971. Donald A. Gardiner, Jr. (Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner), Arlington, Va., W. Douglas Carothers, Jr. (Carothers Carothers), Pittsburgh, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellant. Orland M. Christensen, Gordon R. Sanborn (Christensen, Sanborn, Matthews), Seattle, Wash., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision
King-Kup Candies, Inc. v. King Candy Co.
288 F.2d 944 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 7 times
Holding that KING'S and KING-KUP share a dominant root and, thus, are confusingly similar
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 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"
Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation
15 U.S.C. § 1068 Cited 25 times 3 Legal Analyses
Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"

Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

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"

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

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Affirming likelihood of confusion

Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

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

Holding that KING'S and KING-KUP share a dominant root and, thus, are confusingly similar

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"

Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"