Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that substantial evidence may support a decision \even if two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the evidence\
• stating that the Board need not discuss each du Pont factor and may find a single factor dispositive
• noting that standard character marks are not limited to any particular presentation
• referring generally to comparisons between the standard character mark and “the other mark.”
• finding in opposition that fame of opposer’s marks had not been established on the basis of a prior court decision and had to be established on the record in the opposition, which the applicant had the chance to challenge
• “[T]he T.T.A.B. used current and past commercial displays of the applied-for mark to inform but not to restrict its analysis of potential displays.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).