Houlihan v. Parliament Import Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Lebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC

    11 Civ. 3153 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2012)

    See The Tamarkin Co. v. Seaway Food Town Inc., 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587, 1589 n.4 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd. 1995). "If likelihood of confusion would result if the applicant's mark and the prior mark are used in the same territories, but the likelihood of confusion can be eliminated if the parties' respective territories of use are restricted to avoid overlap, then a concurrent registration which incorporates those geographic restrictions may be issued." See, e.g., Houlihan v. Parliament Import Co., 921 F.2d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Beatrice Foods, 429 F.2d at 466; Precision Tune Inc. v. Precision Auto-Tune Inc., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1095 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd. 1987).

  2. Lebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC

    890 F. Supp. 2d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 32 times
    Finding the gap was not bridged because there was no "concrete expansion plan" to enter defendant's market

    “If likelihood of confusion would result if the applicant's mark and the prior mark are used in the same territories, but the likelihood of confusion can be eliminated if the parties' respective territories of use are restricted to avoid overlap, then a concurrent registration which incorporates those geographic restrictions may be issued.” See, e.g., Houlihan v. Parliament Import Co., 921 F.2d 1258 (Fed.Cir.1990); Beatrice Foods, 429 F.2d at 466;Precision Tune Inc. v. Precision Auto–Tune Inc., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1095 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.1987).