Massage Heights IP LLC v. TruCore Distributors

20 Cited authorities

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
572 U.S. 118 (2014) Cited 3,058 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
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"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 25 times
Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group
637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 27 times 3 Legal Analyses
Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
903 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 18 times
Finding "the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first"
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.
281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 33 times
Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”
Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC
978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 9 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064
In re Guild Mortg. Co.
No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019) Cited 7 times 1 Legal Analyses
Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,910 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,607 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"
Section 1111 - Notice of registration; display with mark; recovery of profits and damages in infringement suit
15 U.S.C. § 1111 Cited 172 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that profits and damages are not available as civil remedies for trademark infringement unless the trademark registrant gives notice or the defendant has actual knowledge of the federal registration
Section 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 148 times 19 Legal Analyses
Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

Massage Heights IP LLC v. TruCore Distributors

20 Cited authorities

Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Finding "the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first"

Holding that a registration for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” is “closely related” to a registration “covering facsimile machines, computers, and computer software”

Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

Vacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"

Providing that profits and damages are not available as civil remedies for trademark infringement unless the trademark registrant gives notice or the defendant has actual knowledge of the federal registration

Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"