§

Thomas H. Wilson

No. 75285881 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2001)
Thomas H. Wilson

23 Cited authorities

  1. Atchison, T. S. F. R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade

    412 U.S. 800 (1973)   Cited 361 times
    Holding that an agency abuses its discretion by not offering adequate explanation for its failure to follow its own precedent

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. In re Int'l Flavors Fragrances Inc.

    183 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 60 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "[t]he federal registration of a trademark does not create an exclusive property right in the mark."

  4. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  5. Davila-Bardales v. I.N.S.

    27 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994)   Cited 45 times
    Finding troubling "prospect of a government agency treating virtually identical legal issues differently in different cases, without any semblance of a plausible explanation"

  6. 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”

  7. Hall v. McLaughlin

    864 F.2d 868 (D.C. Cir. 1989)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where an agency is following established policy, the need for a comprehensive statement of its rationale is less pressing

  8. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    884 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that agencies need not "microscopically examin[e] prior cases" and that prior cases are not "straitjacket, inhibiting experimentation or change"

  9. I.R.S. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

    963 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 10 times

    No. 91-1247. Argued February 24, 1992. Decided May 5, 1992. As Amended May 5, 1992. Robert D. Kamenshine, Attorney, Dept. of Justice, with whom Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William Kanter, Attorney, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner. James F. Blandford, Attorney, F.L.R.A., for respondent. William E. Persina, Sol., William R. Tobey, Deputy Sol., and Ira E. Hoffman, Attorney, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondent. Clinton Wolcott, with whom

  10. 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

  11. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,605 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting 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"

  12. Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings

    15 U.S.C. § 1069   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"

  13. Section 1070 - Appeals to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from decisions of examiners

    15 U.S.C. § 1070   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[a]n appeal may be taken to the [TTAB] from any final decision of the examiner in charge of the registration of marks"