§

Kevin T. McCarney v. Una Mas, Inc.

No. 91107748 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2004)
Kevin T. McCarney v. Una Mas, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Duluth News-Tribune v. a Mesabi Publishing Co.

    84 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that “even several isolated incidents of actual confusion” are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion

  2. Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston

    628 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that two companies involved in car care had "a strong similarity between their wares and services" even though one sold car parts and the other did not

  3. 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"

  4. Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., Inc.

    693 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "Armco" mark was arbitrary as applied to a steel company

  5. 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

  6. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  7. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  8. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”

  9. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors

    748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "[w]hen an opposer's trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of little consequence" in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis

  10. National Football League Prop. v. N.J. Giants

    637 F. Supp. 507 (D.N.J. 1986)   Cited 44 times
    Noting that nonprobability studies are "the type of study employed in the vast majority of market research and relied upon by experts in the field," and that such surveys should be given "substantial weight"

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,585 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,985 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities