§
Vudo, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  3. 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

  4. Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc.

    439 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Del. 1977)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was no abandonment where the plaintiff discontinued manufacture of certain products containing its mark, but continued to sell existing inventory and continued to use the mark on other products

  5. 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

  6. Paula Payne Prod. Co. v. Johnson Publishing

    473 F.2d 901 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8876. March 1, 1973. Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., Washington, D.C., Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Leonard S. Knox, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 166 USPQ 512 (1970), dismissing an opposition lodged

  7. Grandpa Pidgeon's, Missouri v. Borgsmiller

    477 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that two pictures of an elderly man created a similar commercial impression and were, therefore, likely to cause confusion

  8. Shunk Manufacturing Co. v. Tarrant Mfg. Co.

    318 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6896. June 10, 1963. Frank M. Slough and J.H. Slough, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Luther W. Hawley, New York City, for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge, Appellant, Shunk Manufacturing Company, filed a trademark application to register a figure, designated as a Scotsman, as a trademark for heavy duty equipment, such as graders and other ground working machines, blades therefor, sand spreaders, etc. The trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"