VacationFutures Inc.

24 Cited authorities

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"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice
710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 87 times
Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 25 times
Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
In re Viterra Inc.
671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 26 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"
In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.
240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 38 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”
In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP
373 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 30 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness
In re Hotels.com
573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 23 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey
In re Mighty Leaf Tea
601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.
685 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 19 times
Declining to "infer from Nestle's failure to provide survey evidence that such evidence would be harmful"
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,886 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 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"

VacationFutures Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

Holding that the shared term GIANT is the dominant portion of the marks, which supports a finding that there would be a likelihood of confusion between them

Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error

Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

Holding that 1–888–M–A–T–T–R–E–S–S “immediately conveys the impressions that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number”

Holding that courts "may weigh the individual components of the mark" to assess its overall distinctiveness

Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey

Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

Declining to "infer from Nestle's failure to provide survey evidence that such evidence would be harmful"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"