§

SES Société d’Energie Solaire SA

No. 79032663 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2009)
SES Société d’Energie Solaire SA

16 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. 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"

  3. 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

  4. In re Chatam International Inc.

    380 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant's JOSE GASPAR GOLD mark is "nearly identical" to registrant's GASPAR'S ALE mark once the descriptive and non-dominant terms JOSE, GOLD and ALE are properly discounted

  5. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  6. 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

  7. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  8. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  9. Action Temporary Services v. Labor Force

    870 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 88-1446. March 23, 1989. J. Rodman Steele, Steele, Gould Fried, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory A. Nelson. Jonathan E. Jobe, Jr., Hubbard, Thurman, Turner Tucker, Dallas, Tex., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Molly Buck Richard. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this concurrent use proceeding, the

  10. SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.

    697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

  11. Section 2.142 - Time and manner of ex parte appeals

    37 C.F.R. § 2.142   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(a) from the final refusal of an application must be filed within the time provided in § 2.62(a) . (2) An appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141(b) from an expungement or reexamination proceeding must be filed within three months from the issue date of the final Office action. (3) An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed in § 2.126 , and paying the appeal fee. (b) (1) The brief of appellant shall be filed within sixty