Essential Medical Supply, Inc. v. Invacare Corp.
6 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema
937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 83 timesRejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”
Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France
245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 51 timesHolding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller
477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 5 timesHolding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion