11 Cited authorities
Selox v. Fausek
506 U.S. 1034 (1992) Cited 32 timesNo. 92-708. December 14, 1992. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 965 F. 2d 126.
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"
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America
970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 39 timesFinding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"
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
Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 9 timesFinding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods
AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.
474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 13 timesHolding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"
Wincharger Corporation v. Rinco, Inc.
297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 17 timesIn Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1962), for example, which concerned the sophistication of technicians in the field of electrical devices, the court stated that while technicians are "a discriminating group of people [b]eing skilled in their own art does not necessarily preclude their mistaking one trademark for another...."
Smith Brothers Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co.
476 F.2d 1004 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 8947. April 19, 1973. George R. Douglas, Jr. (Misegades Douglas), Washington, D.C., attorneys of record for appellant; Sherman Levy, Washington, D.C., of counsel. B.P. Fishburne, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Glenwood Laboratories v. Am. Home Prod
455 F.2d 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 8612. March 9, 1972. Rehearing Denied April 20, 1972. Eugene C. Knoblock, South Bend, Ind., attorney of record, for appellant. Mortimer Altin, Julius A. Bell, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 161 USPQ 826 (1969)
Shunk Manufacturing Co. v. Tarrant Mfg. Co.
318 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1963) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 6896. June 10, 1963. Frank M. Slough and J.H. Slough, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Luther W. Hawley, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge, Appellant, Shunk Manufacturing Company, filed a trademark application to register a figure, designated as a Scotsman, as a trademark for heavy duty equipment, such as graders and other ground working machines, blades therefor, sand spreaders, etc. The trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,605 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"