Thomas and Linda Diak dba Dyakcraft (formerly Grafton Fibers) v. Crafts Americana Group, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 796 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive
  2. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 173 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO
  3. Astra Pharmaceutical, v. Beckman Instruments

    718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that temporary confusion regarding the association of salesmen from the plaintiff's company with the defendant was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact
  4. 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"
  5. 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"
  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. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration
  8. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
  9. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services
  10. In re Shell Oil Co.

    992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a correlation based on evidence of “overlap of consumers”
  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,892 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
  12. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"