§
Dywon D Kelsey

36 Cited authorities

  1. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 262 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  2. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  3. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 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"

  5. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  6. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 30 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  7. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice

    710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

  8. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming TTAB's finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL was similar to the marks LION CAPITAL and LION, finding that little weight should be accorded to the addition of "Stone" because it did not distinguish the marks in the context of the parties' services

  9. 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"

  10. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 27 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"

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,921 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,047 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  13. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,056 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  14. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional