RIVERA, STEVEN, PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• “[The party’s] Main Brief contains numerous assertions of fact. This information is not evidence under any of the relevant rules … .”
• “Not all of the DuPont factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.”
• “We review the TTAB’s . . . findings of fact for substantial evidence.” (citation omitted)
• DuPont “articulated thirteen factors to consider when determining likelihood of confusion”
• “With respect to similarity of the established trade channels through which the goods reach customers, the TTAB properly followed our case law and ‘presume[d] that the identical goods move in the same channels of trade and are available to the same classes of customers for such goods....”’
• “Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).