14 Cited authorities
Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc.
28 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 1994) Cited 185 timesHolding that it was clearly erroneous to infer secondary meaning from the copying of a product when the copier conspicuously used its own trademarks to distinguish its products
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 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"
In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.
315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion
Roederer v. Delicato Vineyards
148 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 8 timesHolding that one factor can be dispositive
Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing
473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 15 timesPatent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged
Application of West Point-Pepperell, Inc.
468 F.2d 200 (C.C.P.A. 1972) Cited 13 timesPatent Appeal Nos. 8769, 8770. November 2, 1972. Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. C. Willard Hayes, James L. Dooley, William T. Bullinger, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Rich, J. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal was taken from
Coca-Cola, Etc. v. Joseph E. Seagram Sons
526 F.2d 556 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 4 timesPatent Appeal No. 75-594. December 11, 1975. James H. Littlepage, Littlepage, Quaintance, Murphy Dobyns, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Edward J. Handler, III, Kenyon Kenyon Reilly Carr Chapin, New York City, attorney of record, for appellee; Ernest R. Brendel, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark
Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace
432 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1970) Cited 7 timesFinding "PEAK PERIOD" not confusingly similar to "PEAK" as used in very different products
Rockwood Chocolate Co. v. Hoffman Candy Co.
372 F.2d 552 (C.C.P.A. 1967) Cited 10 timesPatent Appeal No. 7712. February 16, 1967. A.D. Caesar, Alan H. Bernstein, Stanley H. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. G. Cabell Busick, Henry W. Leeds, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in consolidated opposition and cancellation proceedings
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 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"