§

Emmpak Foods, Inc.

No. 75746873 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2001)
Emmpak Foods, Inc.

9 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. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  5. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  6. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.

    902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming denial of registration of "TMM" mark for software because: it was likely to be confused with a registered mark "TMS," also used for software; "[t]he marks sound alike and look alike; and "[t]he products are very similar and directly compete."

  7. In re Loew's Theatres, Inc.

    769 F.2d 764 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding incontestable mark DURANGO for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of DURANGO for chewing tobacco

  8. Towers v. Advent Software, Inc.

    913 F.2d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 90-1097. September 6, 1990. Helen Hill Minsker, of Beveridge, DeGrandi Weilacher, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With her on the brief was John T. Roberts. James L. Warren, of Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Kevin M. Fong and Marina H. Park. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of Patent and Trademark Office. Before MARKEY, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CONTI, Senior District Judge. Circuit

  9. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb, Inc.

    442 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8525. June 3, 1971. Paul L. Gomory, Washington, D.C., Jack E. Phillips, J. Arthur Young and Donald J. Quigg, Bartlesville, Okla., attorneys of record, for appellant. Edward C. Gonda, Arthur H. Seidel, Seidel, Gonda Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board