§

NOK Corporation

No. 79090703 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)
NOK Corporation

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 194 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  4. Imagineering, Inc. v. Van Klassens, Inc.

    53 F.3d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Granting trade dress protection to furniture line featuring "a nautical look, with wide slats, scooped seat boards and arms, rounded edges, notched and curved legs, and angled backrests"

  5. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  6. In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc.

    315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

  7. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  8. 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

  9. Neutrogena Corporation v. Bristol-Myers

    410 F.2d 1391 (C.C.P.A. 1969)

    Patent Appeal No. 8174. May 22, 1969. Donald A. Kaul, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. Fulton Brylawski, Arnold, Roylance, Kruger Durkee, Washington, D.C., of counsel. H.C. Dieserud, New York City, for appellee. Robert B. Whittredge, New York City, of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, HOLTZOFF and McLAUGHLIN, Judges, sitting by designation, and ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and

  10. Sakrete, Inc. v. Slag Processors, Inc.

    305 F.2d 482 (C.C.P.A. 1962)

    Patent Appeal No. 6762. July 18, 1962. Truman A. Herron, Cincinnati, Ohio (Wood, Herron Evans, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel) for appellant. Charles B. Cannon, Chicago, Ill., Francis C. Browne, Mead, Browne, Schuyler Beveridge, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 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"

  12. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"