Inhale Therapeutic Systems, Inc.

7 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"
Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries
963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 51 times
Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks
In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.
748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 18 times
Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times
Affirming likelihood of confusion
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
Pennwalt Corp. v. Center Laboratories, Inc.
524 F.2d 235 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 1 times
Patent Appeal No. 75-559. November 6, 1975. Charles E. Feeny, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant. R. Steven Pinkstaff, Fitch, Even, Tabin Luedeka, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Opposition No. 53234. Reversed. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter TTAB) dismissing appellant's opposition
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,598 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"

Inhale Therapeutic Systems, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

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

Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

Finding likelihood of confusion between "Martin's" for bread and "Martin's" for cheese, since the products "travel in the same channels of trade," are sold by the "same retail outlets," and are "often used in combination"

Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

Affirming likelihood of confusion

Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

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

Pennwalt Corp. v. Center Laboratories, Inc.

Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

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"