§

Meritage Real Estate Develop-ment Group, Inc. v. Andrie F. Grimaud and Michael R. Marquardt

No. 91162276 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2006)
Meritage Real Estate Develop-ment Group, Inc. v. Andrie F. Grimaud and Michael R. Marquardt

7 Cited authorities

  1. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  2. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  3. Roederer v. Delicato Vineyards

    148 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that one factor can be dispositive

  4. Sanyo Watch Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co.

    691 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the opposer in a proceeding to test likelihood of confusion "bears the burden of proof which encompasses not only the ultimate burden of persuasion, but also the obligation of going forward with sufficient proof of the material allegations of the Notice of Opposition"

  5. Clinton Detergent Co. v. Procter Gamble

    302 F.2d 745 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 22 times
    In Clinton, 302 F.2d at 748, the court found that the two products in question, car detergent and dish detergent, although intended for different purposes, could be used for the same purpose, and that the purposes were related. Since the goods were also sold through the same retail outlets to the same customers, the court found that the goods were similar.

  6. Lone Star Manufacturing Co. v. Bill Beasley

    498 F.2d 906 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9201. July 3, 1974. Wofford, Felsman Fails, Fort Worth, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellant; Dennison, Dennison, Townshend Meserole, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Howard E. Moore, Dallas, Tex., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition to appellee's

  7. Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank & Supply Co.

    277 F.2d 192 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 11 times
    In Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank and Supply Co., 277 F.2d 192, 196, 47 CCPA 900, this court found likelihood of confusion between two marks on the basis of a similarity between the designs with which words were displayed. The word marks in that case ("Union" and "Columbian"), taken alone, were not in the least alike and certainly far less likely to cause confusion than the words involved in this appeal.