3rd Generation Enterprises Co., Corp. v. Day’s Beverages, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Cumulus Media v. Clear Channel Com

    304 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 126 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an evidentiary hearing is required for entry of a preliminary injunction "where facts are bitterly contested and credibility determinations must be made to decide whether injunctive relief should issue."
  2. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 77 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services
  3. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 86 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes
  4. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration
  5. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
  6. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"
  7. Crash Dummy v. Mattel

    601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 28 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"
  8. Bishop v. Equinox International Corp.

    154 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1998)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that theory of unjust enrichment based on a property theory of trademark rights in which a plaintiff can recover for an "infringer's use of the markholder's property to make a profit" "has long been the rule in this Circuit"
  9. Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

    900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith
  10. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,233 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,843 times   125 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
  13. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,995 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
  14. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,595 times   273 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"
  15. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,037 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark