§

Precision Foods, Inc. v. Major Products Co., Inc.

No. 91109500 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2001)
Precision Foods, Inc. v. Major Products Co., Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Scripps Clinic Research Fdn. v. Genentech

    927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 450 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such claims are not limited by the process

  2. Labounty Mfg., v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    958 F.2d 1066 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that claims for "inequitable conduct," which arise when applicants or their attorneys breach their duty of candor to the patent office, must be proved by challenging party by clear and convincing evidence

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

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  5. 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)

  6. Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Saltzson Drapery

    254 F.2d 158 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 21 times
    In Sure-Fit Products Company v. Saltzson Drapery Company, 1958, 254 F.2d 158, 45 C.C.P.A. 856, an opposition proceeding, the court in holding that "Rite-Fit" as a trademark for ready made slip covers was not confusingly similar to the prior trademark "Sure-Fit" for identical goods sold in direct competition, noted that its decision was most strongly influenced by the fact that the marks in question were the weakest possible type of mark.

  7. Drackett Company v. H. Kohnstamm Co.

    404 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8051. January 16, 1969. F.M. DeRosa, Washington, D.C., Watson, Cole, Grindle Watson, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Francis J. Sullivan, Liddy, Sullivan, Hart, Daniels Baxley, New York City (Joe E. Daniels, New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial