§

Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Cedar Hills Ribs, Inc.

No. 91094671 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 1999)
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Cedar Hills Ribs, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc.

    43 F.3d 922 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 913 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "valid, protectable trademark" is necessary to establish a claim of trademark infringement or unfair competition under the Lanham Act

  2. Lone Star Steakhouse v. Longhorn Steaks

    106 F.3d 355 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 152 times
    Affirming decision that the plaintiff was not entitled to priority over the descriptive words "Lone Star"

  3. 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"

  4. Lone Star Steaks v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc.

    122 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 64 times
    Finding that appellants might satisfy the priority requirement because appellants' federal registration of the mark was prior to appellees' first use of the mark

  5. 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

  6. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  7. 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"

  8. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  9. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  10. In re Hearst Corp.

    982 F.2d 493 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times
    Finding presence of term GIRL in VARGA GIRL sufficient to distinguish from VARGAS for identical goods

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

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,040 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities