§

Hyundai Motor America

No. 78889340 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2009)
Hyundai Motor America

8 Cited authorities

  1. Scoot Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc.

    589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir. 1978)   Cited 282 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nineteen misdirected letters in four years were insufficient to establish likelihood of confusion

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. In re Pacer Technology

    338 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 02-1602. DECIDED: August 4, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Gajarsa, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. Schatzel, Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, of Los Gatos, California, argued for appellant. Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA

  4. 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"

  5. Ford Motor Company v. A.C. Car Group Limited

    Civil Action NO: 01-72733 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2002)   Cited 2 times

    Civil Action NO: 01-72733 March 4, 2002 JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AGREED ORDER VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, United States District Judge: The parties have agreed to resolve their differences in this case and jointly request that the attached Order be entered in this case. AGREED ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), brought this action on July 20, 2001, against Defendant, A.C. Car Group Limited, ("A.C. Car"), to prevent A.C. Cars' anticipatory breach of a license agreement between

  6. Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America

    4 F.2d 333 (3d Cir. 1925)   Cited 85 times
    In Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., (C.C.A. 3) 4 F.2d 333, the court enjoined Wall from using the name "Rolls-Royce Tube Company" in carrying on the business of selling radio tubes.

  7. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  8. Section 575.104 - Uniform tire quality grading standards

    49 C.F.R. § 575.104   Cited 1 times

    (a)Scope. This section requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. (b)Purpose. The purpose of this section is to aid the consumer in making an informed choice in the purchase of passenger car tires. (c)Application. (1) This section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars. However, this section does not apply