Ariel Remosv. Ariel Feierman

16 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 242,177 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 33 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc.
912 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 68 times
Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 times
No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.
945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 25 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors
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"
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed
King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen
496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 8 times
Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 337,500 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 48,240 times 336 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 23,440 times 87 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,986 times 36 Legal Analyses
Stating that evidence is relevant at trial if "it has any tendency to make a fact" that "is of consequence" to the "determin[ation] [of] the action" any "more or less probable"
Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 901 Cited 5,350 times 53 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication
Rule 103 - Rulings on Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 103 Cited 3,523 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that once a court makes a definitive ruling on the record to either admit or exclude evidence, at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection at trial to preserve any alleged error for appeal
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,606 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"

Ariel Remosv. Ariel Feierman

16 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times

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 PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors

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"

Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

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

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Stating that evidence is relevant at trial if "it has any tendency to make a fact" that "is of consequence" to the "determin[ation] [of] the action" any "more or less probable"

Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

Holding that once a court makes a definitive ruling on the record to either admit or exclude evidence, at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection at trial to preserve any alleged error for appeal

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"