As stated in section 1207.01(d)(xi) Family of Marks of the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure:

A family of marks is defined as a group of marks sharing a common element. The common element may be a term, a phrase, or a component in the nature of a prefix or suffix. The family of marks doctrine may be invoked by a plaintiff in inter partes proceedings relating to likelihood of confusion, but is not available to a defendant as a defense against an opposer's or applicant's intervening rights. Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc. v. Sun Drilling Products, 24 USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 1992). Moreover, a family of marks argument is not available to an applicant seeking to overcome a likelihood of confusion refusal in an ex parte appeal. In an ex parte case, the focus of the likelihood of confusion analysis must be on the mark applicant seeks to register, not other marks applicant may have used or registered. In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1644 (TTAB 2009); In re Lar Mor Int'l, Inc., 221 USPQ 180 (TTAB 1983); In re Ald, Inc., 148 USPQ 520 (TTAB 1965).

It has also been noted that, in ex parte proceedings, examining attorneys do not have access to the evidence and information needed to establish whether a family of marks exists. In re Mobay Chemical Co., 166 USPQ 218 (TTAB 1970). Therefore, examining attorneys should refrain from invoking the family of marks doctrine or from referring to a family of marks in a likelihood of confusion analysis. Id.

The Federal Circuit states that "[a] family of marks is a group of marks having a recognizable common characteristic, wherein the marks are composed and used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but the common characteristic of the family, with the trademark owner." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (the Federal Circuit affirmed Board's refusal to register MCPRETZEL and MCDUGAL MCPRETZEL because of likelihood of confusion with the MC and MAC family of marks which include the marks EGG MCMUFFIN, CHICKEN MCNUGGETS, and MCPIZZA); Black and Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1490 (TTAB 2007) (Board sustained opposition to register DIRT HAWG and WATER HAWG because these marks are likely to cause consumer confusion with opposer's family of HOG marks, such as HEDGE HOG, EDGE HOG, GRASS HOG, LAWN HOG, LEAF HOG, and LOG HOG).

Merely using or registering a series of marks containing a common characteristic is insufficient to establish a family of marks. "There must be recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Eveready Battery Co., Inc. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511 (TTAB 2009) (Board ruled that owning and using a number of marks sharing a common feature is insufficient to demonstrate that there is a family of marks in absence of evidence that the owner advertises or promotes the various marks in a way that creates a common exposure and common recognition that the marks come from the same owner). That is, consumers must see that marks with a shared element originate from the same source. Consumers must also recognize that the common characteristic in a family of marks is itself a trademark and distinct on its own. White Heather Distiller, Ltd. V. American Distilling Co., 200 USPQ 466, 470 (TTAB 1978). Public perception and recognition of the family is crucial for establishing a family of marks. When comparing marks, the focus is not on whether an applicant's mark is the same as, or similar to, an opposer's individual marks; rather, the focus is on whether an applicant's mark may be viewed as a member of an opposer's family of marks. Black and Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1491 (TTAB 2007).

The determination of whether a family of marks exists is a question of fact, taking into consideration the distinctiveness of the common characteristic shared by the family of marks, and the competency of the evidence establishing the nature of the use, advertising, and promotion of the family of marks as well as joint advertising and promotion of the family of marks as a unit to create an association of common origin of all marks. AM General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 65 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2002). As in any determination of a likelihood of confusion, the more distinctive or arbitrary the common characteristic is, the more weight it will be given in determining likelihood of confusion. See TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix). Alternatively, the more descriptive or generic the common characteristic is, the less weight it will be accorded in determining likelihood of confusion. American Standard, Inc. v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 200 USPQ 457 (TTAB 1978) (no AQUA family of marks for faucets); Champion Int'l Corp. v. Plexowood, Inc., 191 USPQ 160 (TTAB 1976) (no FLEX family of marks for flexible sheet material); Cambridge Filter Corp. v. Servodyne Corp., 189 USPQ 99 (TTAB 1975) (no CAP or FLO family of marks for air filters); Ft. Howard Paper Co. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 127 USPQ 431, 433 (TTAB 1960) (no NAP family of marks for napkins since NAP is derived from "napkin").

Click the topic headings to navigate through the cases and quotes concerning that topic.
Expand All | Contract All

  • Definition: Family of Marks
    • The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, Cancellation No. 92044366, (TTAB 2007).
      • In our likelihood of confusion analysis, we first consider petitioner's claim to ownership of a family of CBN marks. "A family of marks is a group of marks having a recognizable common characteristic, wherein the marks are composed and used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but also the common characteristic of the family, with the trademark owner. Simply using a series of similar marks does not of itself establish the existence of a family. There must be recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
    • The Black & Decker Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co., Opposition No. 91158891, (TTAB 2007).
      • "A family of marks is a group of marks having a recognizable common characteristic, wherein the marks are composed and used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but the common characteristic of the family, with the trademark owner. Simply using a series of similar marks does not of itself establish the existence of a family. There must be a recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
    • 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, Opposition No. 91117739, (TTAB 2007).
      • "A family of marks is a group of marks having a recognizable common characteristic, wherein the marks are composed and used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but also the common characteristic of the family, with the trademark owner. Simply using a series of similar marks does not of itself establish the existence of a family. There must be recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
    • Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006).
      • Our primary reviewing court has stated: "A family of marks is a group of marks having a recognizable common characteristic, wherein the marks are composed and used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but the common characteristic of the family, with the trademark owner. Simply using a series of similar marks does not of itself establish the existence of a family. There must be a recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods. ... Recognition of the family is achieved when the pattern of usage of the common element is sufficient to be indicative of the origin of the family. It is thus necessary to consider the use, advertisement, and distinctiveness of the marks, including assessment of the contribution of the common feature to the recognition of the marks as of common origin." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1891-92 (Fed. Cir. 1991) [citations omitted].
  • Test to establish a family of marks.
    • The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, Cancellation No. 92044366, (TTAB 2007).
      • "(1) that prior to respondent's use of its mark, the marks comprising petitioner's family of marks, or at least a substantial number of them, were used and promoted together by petitioner in such a manner as to create public recognition coupled with an association of common origin predicated upon the family feature; and (2) that the family feature is distinctive (i.e., not descriptive, so highly suggestive, or so commonly used that it cannot function as a distinguishing characteristic of the party's mark)." Marion Laboratories v. Biochemical/Diagnostics, 6 USPQ2d 1215, 1218 (TTAB 1988).
    • Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006).
      • The Board has held: "In order to establish a "family of marks," it must be demonstrated that the marks asserted to comprise its "family" or a number of them have been used and advertised in promotional material or used in everyday sales activities in such a manner as to create common exposure and thereafter recognition of common ownership based upon a feature common to each mark." American Standard, Inc. v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 200 USPQ 457, 461 (TTAB 1978).
  • There must be recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic of a family of marks is indicative of a common origin of the goods.
    • Nike, Inc. v. WNBA Enterprises, LLC, Opposition No. 91160755, 91160763, (TTAB 2007).
      • As stated by the Court "There must be a recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods." J & J Snack Foods, supra at 1891.
  • To establish a family of marks, one cannot show merely that that it has a number of registrations with a common term, but must show that use of marks sharing a recognizable common characteristic predates applicant's first use of its marks and is made in such a way as to create recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods.
    • The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc. v. The PC Authority, Inc., Opposition No. 113,785, (TTAB 2001).
      • In regard, however, to opposer's claim that it has a family of marks, opposer cannot show merely that it has a number of registrations with a common term, but must show that use of marks sharing "a recognizable common characteristic" predates applicant's first use of its marks and is made in such a way as to create "recognition among the purchasing public that the common characteristic is indicative of a common origin of the goods." J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 1462, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
  • Recognition of a family of marks is achieved when the pattern of usage of the common element is sufficient to be indicative of the origin of the family.
    • The Black & Decker Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co., Opposition No. 91158891, (TTAB 2007).
      • Recognition of the family is achieved when the pattern of usage of the common element is sufficient to be indicative of the origin of the family. Id.
    • 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, Opposition No. 91117739, (TTAB 2007).
      • Recognition of the family is achieved when the pattern of usage of the common element is sufficient to be indicative of the origin of the family. Id.
  • Evidence: Evidence to establish a family of marks.
    • Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006).
      • The Board similarly has held that, to establish a family of marks: "[I]t must be shown by competent evidence, first, that … the marks containing the claimed "family" feature, or at least a substantial number of them, were used and promoted together ... in such a manner as to create public recognition coupled with an association of common origin predicated on the "family" feature; and second, that the "family" feature is distinctive (i.e., not descriptive or highly suggestive or so commonly used in the trade that it cannot function as a distinguishing feature of any party's mark)." Land-O-Nod Co. v. Paulison, 220 USPQ 61, 65-66 (TTAB 1983).
  • Evidence: Any evidence pertaining to consumer reaction and exposure to the family is probative of the association of common ownership.
    • 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, Opposition No. 91117739, (TTAB 2007).
      • In addition, any evidence pertaining to consumer reaction and exposure to the family is probative of the association of common ownership. Witco Chemical Co. v. Chemische Werke Witten GmbH, 158 USPQ 157, 160 (TTAB 1968).
  • Evidence: Internal documents or marketing materials, such as product catalogs and promotional, directed to merchandises are not evidence of public exposure, or the extent of public exposure, to marks alleged to be in a family of marks.
    • Nike, Inc. v. WNBA Enterprises, LLC, Opposition No. 91160755, 91160763, (TTAB 2007).
      • We have insufficient evidence that opposer has promoted any number of its claimed marks together to the public. Opposer's evidence consists largely of either internal documents or marketing materials, such as product catalogs and promotional brochures, directed to merchandisers. None of this material is evidence of public exposure to the marks, or in any event, of the extent of public exposure to such marks.
  • The mere fact applicant may have used and/or registered several marks with a common feature does not, in and of itself establish a family of marks.
    • Nike, Inc. v. WNBA Enterprises, LLC, Opposition No. 91160755, 91160763, (TTAB 2007).
      • The fact that opposer may have used and/or registered several marks incorporating this feature, is not in itself sufficient to establish the existence of a family of marks. See J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
  • Mere ownership of the various marks, or registrations thereof, does not suffice to establish a family of marks.
    • Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006).
      • Mere ownership of the various marks, or registrations thereof, does not suffice to establish a family of marks. See J & J Snack Foods, supra; Consolidated Foods Corp. v. Sherwood Medical Industries, Inc., 177 USPQ 279 (TTAB 1973); see generally J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:61 (4th ed. updated 2006).
  • Even if a party establishes a family of marks, another's party's mark might not be viewed as a member of the family of marks if structured differently from the family of marks.
    • The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, Cancellation No. 92044366, (TTAB 2007).
      • Even if petitioner had established a family of CBN marks (i.e., CBN followed by another word such as CBN News, CBN Outreach, CBN Animation, etc.), respondent's mark ABSCBN would not likely be viewed as a member of petitioner's CBN family of marks. Respondent's mark is structured differently. Rather than CBN followed by another word, respondent's mark is comprised of two sets of three letters - - ABS prior to CBN.
  • In comparing a mark against a family of marks, the question becomes whether applicant's mark would be likely to be viewed as a member of the family of marks.
    • The Black & Decker Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co., Opposition No. 91158891, (TTAB 2007).
      • In comparing opposer's marks with applicant's marks, then, the question is not whether each of applicant's marks is similar to opposer's individual marks, but whether applicant's marks would be likely to be viewed as members of opposer's HOG family of marks.
    • 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, Opposition No. 91117739, (TTAB 2007).
      • In comparing opposer's family of marks with applicant's mark, the question is not whether applicant's mark is similar to opposer's individual marks, but whether applicant's mark would be likely to be viewed as a member of opposer's "Gulp" family of marks. The Black & Decker Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co., ___ USPQ2d ___ (TTAB March 23, 2007); Plus Products v. Medical Modalities Associates, Inc., 217 USPQ 464, 465 n.8 (TTAB 1983)("purchasers familiar with plaintiff's family of marks would believe the defendant's mark is but another member of that family").
  • Opposer must demonstrate that the marks asserted to comprise the family, or a number of them, have been used and advertised in promotional material or in everyday sales activities in such a manner as to create common exposure and thereafter recognition of common ownership based upon a feature common to each mark.
    • Nike, Inc. v. WNBA Enterprises, LLC, Opposition No. 91160755, 91160763, (TTAB 2007).
      • Accordingly, opposer must demonstrate that the marks asserted to comprise the family, or a number of them, have been used and advertised in promotional material or in everyday sales activities in such a manner as to create common exposure and thereafter recognition of common ownership based upon a feature common to each mark. See Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334 (TTAB 2006) citing American Standard, Inc. v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 200 USPQ 457, 461 (TTAB 1978).
  • As with any trademark, the rights appurtenant to the family exist in connection with the goods or services with which the marks are used.
    • 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, Opposition No. 91117739, (TTAB 2007).
      • As with any trademark, the rights appurtenant to the family exist in connection with the goods or services with which the marks are used. Merritt Foods Co. v. Americana Submarine, 209 USPQ 591, 597 (TTAB 1980)("the rationale for the ‘family of marks' theory is that a party has in effect established a ‘secondary meaning' in a term which serves as the characteristic feature of a number of marks used and promoted together by him in his field of endeavor, so that the subsequent use by another party of a mark containing this term for like or related goods would be likely to create an association of the later mark with the prior user and/or his ‘family of marks'.")(emphasis added); Medical Modalities Associates, Inc. v. ARA Corp., 203 USPQ 295, 301 (TTAB 1979); Porta-Tool, Inc. v. DND Corp., 196 USPQ 643, 649 (TTAB 1977).
  • A family of marks argument can be used offensively but not defensively.
    • Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., Opposition No. 110,043, (TTAB 2001).
      • With respect to the first argument, it is well settled that a family of marks argument can be used offensively as a sword but not defensively as a shield. See Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc. v. Sun Drilling Products, 24 USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 1992).
    • Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., Opposition No. 110,043, (TTAB 2001).
      • The Baroid decision dealt squarely with the question also presented by the case at hand, specifically, "the question of whether a defendant in a Board inter partes proceeding can rely upon its asserted ownership of a family of marks as a defense against a plaintiff's intervening common-law rights." Baroid, supra at 1049. In explaining why a defendant could not, the Board noted: "The issue under Section 2(d) is whether applicant's mark sought to be registered, or respondent's mark, the registration of which is sought to be cancelled, so resembles plaintiff's registered and/or previously used mark or marks as to be likely to cause confusion. Thus, the fact that a plaintiff may rely upon any confusingly similar mark which it has either registered or previously used, is to be contrasted with the fact that a defendant whose sole mark in issue is its mark sought to be registered or its mark sought to be cancelled, can rely upon only its rights in that mark, except in very limited situations. [Italics in original] One situation involves a defendant's claim that it already owns a substantially similar registered mark for substantially similar goods and/or services such that the second registration (or second registration sought) causes no added injury to the plaintiff. See: Morehouse Manufacturing Corp. v. J. Strickland & Co., 407 F.2d 881, 160 USPQ 715 (CCPA 1969). A second situation involves a defendant's attempt to defeat a plaintiff's priority of use claim by virtue of the defendant's earlier use of a mark which is the legal equivalent of defendant's involved mark for the same or similar goods. This latter situation involves the concept of 'tacking.' See: Van Dyne-Crotty Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp., 926 F.2d 1156, 17 USPQ2d 1866 (Fed. Cir. 1991), aff'g 18 USPQ2d 1804 (TTAB 1990) [other citation omitted] … [A] party seeking to tack on its use of an earlier mark to its use of a later mark may do so only if the earlier mark is the legal equivalent of the mark in question or indistinguishable therefrom, and would be considered by purchasers as the same mark. For purposes of tacking, two marks are not necessarily legal equivalents merely because they are considered to be confusingly similar. Tacking of an earlier use of one mark onto the later use of a very similar mark, for purposes of priority, has been permitted only in "rare" instances. [citation omitted]. To allow a defendant to plead and prove as a defense against a plaintiff's intervening common-law rights that it owns an earlier family of marks would create, at least in our minds, an unacceptable loophole to the stringent standards applicable to the two situations set forth above. [footnote omitted] The loophole would be unacceptable because, as noted above, the priority-of-use issue under Section 2(d) (when priority of use is in issue) is whether the defendant's use of its mark sought to be registered, or the registration of which is sought to be cancelled, precedes the plaintiff's use of the plaintiff's pleaded mark(s), not whether the defendant has priority of use of another mark or marks which the plaintiff's mark(s) so resembles as to be likely to cause confusion. Thus, we must narrowly construe the availability of defenses grounded upon ownership of other earlier-used and/or registered marks." Id. at 1052-53.
  • For an applicant who may lose an opposition proceeding because of its inability to rely on family of marks as a defense, there is always the possibility that the applicant could prevail in a civil action in which it can assert the family of marks argument offensively.
    • Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., Opposition No. 110,043, (TTAB 2001).
      • For the reasons clearly articulated in Baroid, applicant in the instant case is unable to rely on any family of marks, whether inchoate or fully formed, as a defense to opposer's Section 2(d) claim based on prior actual use in commerce of the HORNBLOWER & WEEKS mark. In closing our discussion of the family of marks issue, we note an observation made in the Baroid decision. That is, for an applicant who may lose an opposition battle before the Board because of its inability to rely on family of marks as a defense, there is always the possibility that such applicant could ultimately win the war in a civil action in which it can assert the family of marks argument offensively. See Baroid, supra at 1053 ("…[A] party unable to claim a family of marks defense for priority [at the Board] nonetheless has an adequate remedy in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.").
  • If marks do not comprise a family of marks, then each mark must satisfy the likelihood of confusion determination.
    • Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006).
      • As noted above, however, these marks do not comprise a family of marks, so we shall make our likelihood of confusion determination as to each mark, separately.
  • A website displaying multiple uses of a term in multiple marks and in conjunction with links to other web pages does not establish the terms as a common feature of a family of marks.
    • The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, Cancellation No. 92044366, (TTAB 2007).
      • Petitioner's website is the only exhibit in the record displaying multiple uses of CBN. However, the website is not sufficient to establish that petitioner has a family of CBN marks. First, there is no testimony or other evidence establishing that petitioner posted its website prior to either respondent's first use of ABS-CBN in commerce (1994) or the filing date of respondent's application for registration (April 25, 1997). Second, the different references to CBN as displayed on the webpages of record are simply links to other webpages (e.g., CBN News, CBN Outreach, CBN Television). The website links do not create the commercial impression that CBN is the common feature of a family of trademarks. Thus, petitioner has not met the first part of the test (i.e., that petitioner promoted its marks together prior to respondent's use of its mark).
  • Case Finding: Opposer failed to establish a family of GENUINE marks.
    • Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006).
      • Applying these principles in the present case, we must reject opposer's claim of ownership of a family of GENUINE marks. Opposer has failed to present any evidence showing that it has advertised and promoted its asserted GENUINE marks together as a family, and there is no evidence upon which we might base a finding that purchasers recognize GENUINE as the surname of a family of marks.
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, Opposition No. 91117739, (TTAB 2007) Nike, Inc. v. WNBA Enterprises, LLC, Opposition No. 91160755, 91160763, (TTAB 2007) The Black & Decker Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co., Opposition No. 91158891, (TTAB 2007) The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, Cancellation No. 92044366, (TTAB 2007) Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., Opposition No. 91158556, (TTAB 2006) Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., Opposition No. 110,043, (TTAB 2001) Grand Total
The Black & Decker Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co., ___ USPQ2d ___ (TTAB March 23, 2007) 1
Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334 (TTAB 2006) 1
Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc. v. Sun Drilling Products, 24 USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 1992) 1
J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 5
Van Dyne-Crotty Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp., 926 F.2d 1156, 17 USPQ2d 1866 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1
Marion Laboratories v. Biochemical/Diagnostics, 6 USPQ2d 1215 (TTAB 1988) 1
Land-O-Nod Co. v. Paulison, 220 USPQ 61 (TTAB 1983) 1
Plus Products v. Medical Modalities Associates Inc., 217 USPQ 464 (TTAB 1983) 1
Merritt Foods Co. v. Americana Submarine, 209 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1980) 1
Medical Modalities Associates Inc. v. ARA Corp., 203 USPQ 295 (TTAB 1979) 1
American Standard Inc. v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 200 USPQ 457 (TTAB 1978) 2
Porta-Tool Inc. v. DND Corp., 196 USPQ 643 (TTAB 1977) 1
Sherwood Medical Industries Inc., 177 USPQ 279 (TTAB 1973) 1
Morehouse Manufacturing Corp. v. J. Strickland & Co., 407 F.2d 881, 160 USPQ 715 (CCPA 1969) 1
Witco Chemical Co. v. Chemische Werke Witten GmbH, 158 USPQ 157 (TTAB 1968) 1
Grand Total 7 3 2 4 3 20
No Statutes Listed.