14 Cited authorities
Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp.
369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 1,070 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that “ ‘trademark infringement amounts to irreparable injury as a matter of law’ ” (quoting S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 378 (3d Cir.1992))
Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech
269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 229 timesHolding that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that parties' products were unrelated even though both fell under the broader category of "corporate security" where the plaintiff focused on physical security and the defendant focused on information and computer security
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 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"
In re Nat. Data Corp.
753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 73 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"
In re Four Seasons Hotels Ltd.
987 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 3 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 92-1222. March 9, 1993. Anthony L. Fletcher, Hunton Williams, New York City, argued, for appellant. Linda M. Skoro, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With her on the brief, were Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. and Albin F. Drost, Deputy Sol. Of counsel, were Richard E. Schafer, John W. Dewhirst and Lee E. Barrett. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office. Before RICH, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PLAGER
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating 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
In re N.A.D. Inc.
754 F.2d 996 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 7 timesAppeal No. 84-1215. February 14, 1985. Stanley H. Cohen (argued), Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein Cohen, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick (argued), Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, RICH and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from
Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.
534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 15 timesHolding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"
Amalgamated Bank, N.Y. v. Amalgamated Trust
842 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 4 timesNo. 87-1526. March 23, 1988. Donald A. Kaul of Brownstein, Zeidman and Schomer, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant. Robert W. Sacoff of Pattishall, McAuliffe Hofstetter, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee Amalgamated Trust. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee PTO. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., and Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol. Appeal from the Trademark and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 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"