P.J. Valckenberg GmbH v. Phicon Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd.

11 Cited authorities

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"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 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"
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.”
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"
In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.
105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 33 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
Rivard v. Linville
133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 23 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon
West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants
31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 21 times
Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes
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
Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing
473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 15 times
Patent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 359,979 times 954 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,620 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

P.J. Valckenberg GmbH v. Phicon Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd.

11 Cited authorities

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

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"

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

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

Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

Holding that malt liquor and tequila sold under the same mark would cause a likelihood of confusion

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"