§

McCorkle Nurseries, Inc. v. Helen Yoest dba Tiger Lily’s

No. 91191035 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2011)
McCorkle Nurseries, Inc. v. Helen Yoest dba Tiger Lily’s

14 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,968 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. 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"

  3. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  4. 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"

  5. 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

  6. Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd.

    393 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that textually identical "RITZ" marks used in cooking classes and kitchen textiles were dissimilar

  7. Firsthealth v. Carefirst

    479 F.3d 825 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no excusable neglect where the second and third factors weighed against such a finding

  8. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  9. Massey Junior Col. v. Fas. Inst. of Tech

    492 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that conflicting marks need to be analyzed in their entirety even when sharing a prominent feature

  10. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.

    565 F.2d 683 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 77-576. November 23, 1977. Rober C. Comstock, Los Angeles, Cal., of record, for appellant. Edward A. Meilman, Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, New York City, of record, for appellee; Sidney G. Faber, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing an

  11. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 51,515 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,603 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"

  13. Section 2.116 - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    37 C.F.R. § 2.116   Cited 50 times
    Making the federal rules of civil procedure generally applicable in TTAB proceedings