§

Ambev S.A. v. Cervejaria Petropolis SA

No. 92059437 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)
Ambev S.A. v. Cervejaria Petropolis SA

21 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Emergency One, Inc. v. American Fireeagle

    228 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that three consecutive years of non-use of a mark creates a presumption of abandonment

  3. 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.”

  4. Stetson v. Howard D. Wolf Associates

    955 F.2d 847 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 53 times
    Deciding case despite trial court's application of erroneous legal standard where facts adequately supported result

  5. 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

  6. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 14 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  7. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  8. Stock Pot Restaurant, Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc.

    737 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 32 times
    In Stock Pot, the appellee was a dissolved Massachusetts corporation at the time it filed suit and therefore did not have capacity to sue under Massachusetts law.

  9. P. A. B. Produits, Etc. v. Satinine Societa

    570 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 13 times

    Appeal No. 77-589. February 16, 1978. Robert J. Patch, Washington, D.C. (Young Thompson, Arlington, Va.), attorneys of record, for appellant. G. Franklin Rothwell, Washington, D.C. (Sughrue, Rothwell, Mion, Zinn Macpeak, Washington, D.C.), attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. LANE, Judge. Registrant appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)

  10. Marcoin, Inc. v. Edwin K. Williams Co.

    605 F.2d 1325 (4th Cir. 1979)   Cited 10 times
    In Marcoin, 605 F.2d at 1328, this court held that "where an answer to an interrogatory which may go to the heart of the whole case is directly contrary to a key finding of the district court," the court should consider the interrogatory answer and state in its opinion what weight it was given. Marcoin is inapplicable to this case because the FSLIC's statements are not directly contrary to the district court's findings; they are simply broader.

  11. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 11,262 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,016 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  13. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,600 times   274 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"

  14. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 918 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  15. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  16. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 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"

  17. Section 2.126 - Form of submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

    37 C.F.R. § 2.126   Cited 1 times

    (a) Submissions must be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board via ESTTA. (1) Text in an electronic submission must be filed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. (2) Exhibits pertaining to an electronic submission must be made electronically as an attachment to the submission and must be clear and legible. (b) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, submissions may be filed in paper form. All submissions in paper