§

Dade Behring Inc. v. Bio-Chem Laboratory Systems, Inc.

No. 91114796 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2001)
Dade Behring Inc. v. Bio-Chem Laboratory Systems, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,917 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. 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"

  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. Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products

    866 F.2d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 46 times
    Finding that as a preliminary to comparing the marks in their entireties it is not improper to give less weight to the generic "pecan" part of the marks in finding no likely confusion in: PECAN SANDIES pecan cookies vs. PECAN SHORTEES pecan cookies

  5. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  6. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,610 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit