Abronette McDaniel a/k/a Bonnie McDaniel v. Light Shine Media Group, LLC

18 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence was insufficient to establish COACH mark used with handbags and leather goods met fame threshold for federal dilution claim
  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 164 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Listing thirteen factors relevant to likelihood of confusion determination
  3. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
  4. Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum

    586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing
  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
  6. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Empresa Cubana, we held that petitioner's trademark application is a "legitimate commercial interest," satisfying the real interest requirement.
  7. Lens.Com, Inc. v. 1–800 Contacts, Inc.

    686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    In Lens.com, the court found that the Lens.com software facilitated the customers' online ordering, providing customers an enhanced consumer experience that provided greater value to Lens.com's online retail services.
  8. Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, L.L.C.

    600 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 4 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that we give the TTAB significant latitude in applying the TBMP when the language therein is "permissive"
  9. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes
  10. Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

    640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context
  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 15,674 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
  12. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 10,318 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that hearsay statements are admissible if they constitute records of a regularly conducted activity
  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,275 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Requiring for use-based registration "such number of specimens or facsimiles of the mark as used as may be required by the Director"
  14. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,442 times   205 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 881 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Permitting amendment to a registered mark so long as that amendment “does not alter materially the character of the mark”
  16. § 2.122 Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"