§

SmithKline Beecham Pharma-ceuticals Co. v. L. Molteni & C. dei F.lli Alitti S.p.A.

No. 91105213 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2000)
SmithKline Beecham Pharma-ceuticals Co. v. L. Molteni & C. dei F.lli Alitti S.p.A.

9 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. 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

  3. Electronic Design Sales v. Electronic Sys

    954 F.2d 713 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that purchaser confusion is the "primary focus" and, in case of goods and services that are sold, "the inquiry generally will turn on whether actual or potential `purchasers' are confused"

  4. Smithkline Beckman Corp. v. Proctor Gamble Co.

    591 F. Supp. 1229 (N.D.N.Y. 1984)   Cited 19 times
    Finding the marks ECOTRIN and ENCAPRIN dissimilar where the commonality, "RIN," is derivative of the generic term "aspirin"

  5. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

    534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    Holding 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"

  6. 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)

  7. Witco Chemical Co. v. Whitfield Chemical

    418 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8207. December 18, 1969. Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. Ben Cohen, Washington, D.C., Charles B. Spangenberg, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. William C. McCoy, Jr., Robert D. Hart, McCoy, Greene Howell, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, MATTHEWS, Judge, sitting by designation, and ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal

  8. Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. Wander Company

    280 F.2d 435 (C.C.P.A. 1960)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6533. July 20, 1960. Arnold B. Christen, Washington, D.C., of counsel, for appellant. Davis, Lindsey, Hibben Noyes, Albert W. Bicknell, Chicago, Ill. (George N. Hibben, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title

  9. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,585 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party