Legal Opinion
Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (u.s.a.), Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided July 17, 1984No. Appeal 84-729PublishedCited by 208 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NIES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office dismissing Opposition No. 67,-633 to registration of the mark FERMODYL PURE GOLD (GOLD disclaimed) for hair treatment preparations, as shown in Application Serial No. 296,488, of Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., based on likelihood of confusion with the mark PURE GOLD for fresh citrus fruits and juices, a mark long used and registered by Pure Gold, Inc., (PGI). We affirm.
Background
The decision of the Board setting forth more particularly the details of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- United States Steel Corporation v. Vasco Metals CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Exxon Corp. v. National Foodline Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
3Cited by208 opinions
- Donna Krenik v. County of Le SueurCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Spraying Systems Company v. Delavan, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Levi Strauss & Co., Applicant/appellant v. Genesco, Inc., Opposer/appelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
203 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.