§

Coyote Botanicals, Inc.

No. 75695933 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2001)
Coyote Botanicals, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  2. 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"

  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. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  5. Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc.

    9 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times

    No. 93-1204. November 17, 1993. Howard P. Peck, Atty., Abelman, Frayne Schwab, New York City, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Julianne Abelman. Mark F. Harrington, Atty., Perman Green, Fairfield, CT, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before RICH, MAYER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) which both sustained and dismissed

  6. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  7. 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"

  8. Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller

    477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion

  9. Neutrogena Corporation v. Bristol-Myers

    410 F.2d 1391 (C.C.P.A. 1969)

    Patent Appeal No. 8174. May 22, 1969. Donald A. Kaul, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Fulton Brylawski, Arnold, Roylance, Kruger Durkee, Washington, D.C., of counsel. H.C. Dieserud, New York City, for appellee. Robert B. Whittredge, New York City, of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, HOLTZOFF and McLAUGHLIN, Judges, sitting by designation, and ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and

  10. 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"