Annie Sloan Interiors, Ltd. v. Studio van Gogh Studio van Gogh v. Annie Sloan Interiors, Ltd.

14 Cited authorities

Allen v. McCurry
449 U.S. 90 (1980) Cited 5,776 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
465 U.S. 75 (1984) Cited 3,559 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,251 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Associates, Inc.
999 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 193 times
Finding no claim preclusion in a Title VII case where the prior litigation involved failure to process a COBRA request for post-termination medical coverage
Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems
223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 78 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply
The Haytian Republic
154 U.S. 118 (1894) Cited 242 times
Explaining that a party is "not at liberty to split up his demand, and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a portion of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to be presented in a second suit, if the first fail. There would be no end to litigation if such a practice were permissible."
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 23 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.
987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 18 times
Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion
Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.
961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 12 times
Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"
Vitaline Corp. v. General Mills, Inc.
891 F.2d 273 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 9 times
No. 89-1397. December 7, 1989. James H. Laughlin, Jr., Benoit, Smith Laughlin, Arlington, argued, for appellant. With him on the brief was John C. Smith, Jr. Jeffery A. Handelman, William Brinks Olds Hofer Gilson Lione, Chicago, Ill., argued, for appellee. With him on the brief was Dean A. Olds. Also on the brief was Richard M. Berman, Sr. Associate Counsel, General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel. Appeal from the United States Patent Trademark Office, Trademark Trial Appeal Board. Before
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 349,026 times 931 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,300 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,428 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

Annie Sloan Interiors, Ltd. v. Studio van Gogh Studio van Gogh v. Annie Sloan Interiors, Ltd.

14 Cited authorities

Holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action

Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Finding no claim preclusion in a Title VII case where the prior litigation involved failure to process a COBRA request for post-termination medical coverage

Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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