17 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting 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 AnalysesFinding 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"
On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online
229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 77 timesApplying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services
Recot, Inc. v. Becton
214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 57 timesHolding 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
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 25 timesReviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 26 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
903 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 18 timesFinding "the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first"
In re Guild Mortg. Co.
No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019) Cited 7 times 1 Legal AnalysesVacating the Board's decision and remanding for the Board to reconsider one of the DuPont factors and "to reconsider its likelihood of confusion determination in the first instance in light of all the evidence"
Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Commc'ns Inc.
955 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 2 times 1 Legal Analyses2019-1351 04-14-2020 STRATUS NETWORKS, INC., Appellant v. UBTA-UBET COMMUNICATIONS INC., Appellee Joshua Jones, The Law Office of Joshua G. Jones, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Matthew Barlow, Workman Nydegger, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellee. Also represented by John C. Stringham, David R. Todd, Thomas R. Vuksinick. Reyna, Circuit Judge. Joshua Jones, The Law Office of Joshua G. Jones, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Matthew Barlow, Workman Nydegger, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for
In re St. Helena Hosp.
774 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 5 times 3 Legal AnalysesAffirming Board's determination that applicant's and registrant's marks have similar connotations where although "the [use] specimens refer to days and minutes, respectively, neither identification specifies a certain period of time or suggests any specific meaning of the word ‘TEN’ or the numeral ‘10’ " present in the applicant's and registrant's marks
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,605 times 274 Legal AnalysesGranting 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"
Section 2.85 - Classification schedules
37 C.F.R. § 2.85 Cited 7 times(a)International classification system. Section 6.1 of this chapter sets forth the international system of classification for goods and services, which applies for all statutory purposes to: (1) Applications filed in the Office on or after September 1, 1973, and resulting registrations; and (2) Registrations resulting from applications filed on or before August 31, 1973, that have been amended to adopt international classification pursuant to § 2.85(e)(3) . (b)Prior United States classification system