§

Worldwide Golf Enterprises, Inc. v. Pintracker Golf, Inc.

No. 91110983 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2005)
Worldwide Golf Enterprises, Inc. v. Pintracker Golf, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  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. Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc.

    803 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that incontestable status does not preclude defendant from arguing that mark is weak and not infringed because no confusion was present

  4. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America

    970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Finding similarity between "CENTURY 21" and "CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA" in part because "consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word"

  5. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  6. J.C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.

    340 F.2d 960 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7310. February 11, 1965. Albert H. Kirchner, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Robert D. Hovey, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. J.C. Hall Company filed application to register "HALLMARK" for blank checks issued in single and book form, alleging use since April 17, 1933. Registration has been opposed by Hallmark Cards, Incorporated, alleging prior and continuous use of the identical term "HALLMARK"

  7. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

    474 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "little weight is to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion" because "[t]he existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them"

  8. Conde Nast Publications v. Miss Quality

    507 F.2d 1404 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 9 times
    In Conde Nast, this court's predecessor affirmed the Board's decision that there was not a likelihood of confusion between COUNTRY VOGUES for women's dresses and VOGUE for a magazine.

  9. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  10. Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. Englander Co.

    324 F.2d 186 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7011. November 14, 1963. Rehearing Denied January 17, 1964. Kingsland, Rogers, Ezell Robbins, Estill E. Ezell, Edmund C. Rogers, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Olson, Trexler, Wolters Bushnell, Chicago, Ill. (Richard Bushnell, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. RICH, Judge. This is an appeal by the opposer in a consolidated opposition and cancellation proceeding wherein the Patent Office Trademark Trial

  11. Section 362 - Automatic stay

    11 U.S.C. § 362   Cited 30,087 times   181 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place

  12. Rule 6009 - Prosecution and Defense of Proceedings by Trustee or Debtor in Possession

    Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6009   Cited 212 times
    Authorizing a debtor in possession to "commence and prosecute any action or proceeding in behalf of the estate before any tribunal"