§

Forrester Laboratories

No. 75605331 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2001)
Forrester Laboratories

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Kimberly-Clark, v. H. Douglas Enterprises

    774 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that trade dress associated with the mark of the opposed registration was irrelevant in distinguishing the mark because "such dress might well be changed at any time; only the word mark itself is to be registered"

  3. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating 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

  4. Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Saltzson Drapery

    254 F.2d 158 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 21 times
    In Sure-Fit Products Company v. Saltzson Drapery Company, 1958, 254 F.2d 158, 45 C.C.P.A. 856, an opposition proceeding, the court in holding that "Rite-Fit" as a trademark for ready made slip covers was not confusingly similar to the prior trademark "Sure-Fit" for identical goods sold in direct competition, noted that its decision was most strongly influenced by the fact that the marks in question were the weakest possible type of mark.

  5. Application of Belgrade Shoe Company

    411 F.2d 1352 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that there was a likelihood of confusion between COL'EEJUNS' and COLLEGIENNE, which were pronounced similarly

  6. Drackett Company v. H. Kohnstamm Co.

    404 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8051. January 16, 1969. F.M. DeRosa, Washington, D.C., Watson, Cole, Grindle Watson, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Francis J. Sullivan, Liddy, Sullivan, Hart, Daniels Baxley, New York City (Joe E. Daniels, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial