§

Orion Electric Co., Ltd. v. Orion Electric Co., Ltd.

No. 91121807 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2004)
Orion Electric Co., Ltd. v. Orion Electric Co., Ltd.

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

  3. 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

  4. Avakoff v. Southern Pacific Co.

    765 F.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that an interstate shipment of trademarked goods from the manufacturer to the trademark owner was "purely a delivery of the goods to applicant from the manufacturer.... That is, it was a shipment of the goods in preparation for offering the goods for sale. It did not make the goods available to the purchasing public. Without more, this type of shipment is clearly not activity amounting to a sale or transportation of the goods in commerce and does not constitute a bona fide shipment sufficient to lay a foundation for federal registration."

  5. Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland

    407 F.2d 881 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland Co., 407 F.2d 881, 888-89, 160 USPQ 715, 721 (CCPA 1969) the court stated that false suggestion requires the existence of likelihood of confusion.

  6. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  7. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  8. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  9. Universal Overall Co. v. Stonecutter Mills

    379 F.2d 983 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 2 times
    Entertaining an opposition on the ground that the application contained fraudulent information. See Section 33, (b), 15 U.S.C. § 1115, (b)

  10. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,314 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,882 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 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"