§

The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California v. Kent G. Anderson

No. 91194327 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2014)
The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California v. Kent G. Anderson

15 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. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  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. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.

    746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 47 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal on claim preclusion grounds

  5. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.

    719 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 29 times
    Recognizing that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not have issue preclusive effect

  6. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  7. 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

  8. Chromalloy American Corp. v. Kenneth Gordon

    736 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that infringement litigation between different marks did not claim preclude later petition in opposition to registration

  9. 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

  10. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.

    648 F.2d 1335 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    Finding extensive licensing of mark MONOPOLY for real estate game relevant evidence of relatedness of goods

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,466 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. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,888 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark