§

Garan Services Corp. v. The Ultimate Green Store, LLC

91239649 (T.T.A.B. May. 20, 2021)
Garan Services Corp. v. The Ultimate Green Store, LLC

32 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,095 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 962 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  3. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 578 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

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

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 257 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  5. 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

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  7. 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"

  8. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  9. 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

  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. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,126 times   94 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,916 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 148 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"