§

ProQuest Information and Learning Company v. Jacques R. Island

No. 91158016 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2007)
ProQuest Information and Learning Company v. Jacques R. Island

19 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. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  5. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  6. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  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. 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. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb, Inc.

    442 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8525. June 3, 1971. Paul L. Gomory, Washington, D.C., Jack E. Phillips, J. Arthur Young and Donald J. Quigg, Bartlesville, Okla., attorneys of record, for appellant. Edward C. Gonda, Arthur H. Seidel, Seidel, Gonda Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and LANDIS, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

  10. Smith Brothers Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co.

    476 F.2d 1004 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8947. April 19, 1973. George R. Douglas, Jr. (Misegades Douglas), Washington, D.C., attorneys of record for appellant; Sherman Levy, Washington, D.C., of counsel. B.P. Fishburne, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,403 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

  12. Rule 36 - Requests for Admission

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 36   Cited 6,314 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

  13. Section 3 - Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony

    15 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 225 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. Every person who shall

  14. Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation

    15 U.S.C. § 1068   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"

  15. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  16. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  17. Section 2.133 - Amendment of application or registration during proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.133   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application subject to an opposition may not be amended in substance nor may a registration subject to a cancellation be amended or disclaimed in part, except with the consent of the other party or parties and the approval of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or upon motion granted by the Board. (b) If, in an inter partes proceeding, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board finds that a party whose application or registration is the subject of the proceeding is not entitled to registration