Case List: Likelihood of Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Sophistication of Buyer is no guarantee against confusion.
  • Baker Hughes Ltd. v. Hiroo Khushalani & Anr.; 74 (1998) DLT 715 (Para 48)
Initial Interest Confusion
  • Mobil Oil Corporation v. Pegasus Petrolium Corp. 1677 2 U.S.P.Q.
  • Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc. 1990 39 U.S.P.Q. (7th Cir. 1996)
  • Brookfield v. West Coast (9th Cir. Court of Appeals 9856918)
There is a likelihood of confusion when one mark is being used for goods and for similar services involving those goods
  •  Steelcase, Inc. v. Steelcare, Inc. 219 U.S.P.Q. 433 (furniture refinishing services and office furniture)
  • In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1467 (mustard and restaurant services)
  • Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc. 186 USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1975) (cleaning equipment components and cleaning apparatus leasing services)
  • In re H.J. Seiler Co., 129 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1961) (food products and restaurant catering services)
  • Christian Dior, S.A.R.L. v. Miss Dior of Flatbush, 173 USPQ 416 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) (clothing goods and dry cleaning stores)
  • In re Solar Energy Corp., 207 USPQ 744 (TTAB 1983) (solar heating systems and solar energy engineering/broadcasting services)
  • Corinitihian Broadcasting Corp. v. Nippon Electric Co. Ltd. (TTAB, Jan 7, 1983)(television picture transmitters and receivers and television broadcasting services)
  • In re Opus One Inc., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1812, 2001 WL 1182982 (T.T.A.B. 2001) (wine and restaurant services)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s