§

Arrow Trading Co., Inc. v. Victorinox A.G. and Wenger S.A.

No. 91103315 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2003)
Arrow Trading Co., Inc. v. Victorinox A.G. and Wenger S.A.

23 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 2,010 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. Taco Cabana Intern., Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc.

    932 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 249 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has “considerable discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy for infringement”

  3. James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc.

    540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a confusion rate of 15% was evidence of more than de minimis confusion

  4. The Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co.

    124 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that "an order adjudging a party in contempt unaccompanied by sanctions is not final and therefore is not appealable"

  5. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  6. Kalman v. Berlyn Corp.

    914 F.2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 79 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion not to allow the plaintiff to amend its complaint to add a related defendant when the defendant and the related defendant were treated as one and the defendant was not prejudiced

  7. 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.”

  8. Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co. Inc.

    30 F.3d 348 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase “Swiss Army knife” when used in conjunction with the statement “Made in China” to describe a multifunction knife was not a false advertisement under § 43(B) as a matter of law because it did not “lend itself to being construed as a statement of geographic origin” even though “roughly 40% of the relevant public believe[d] [mistakenly] that a Swiss Army knife is manufactured in Switzerland”

  9. 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

  10. 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"

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,193 times   92 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. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 7,861 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,910 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,033 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"

  16. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 148 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  17. Section 1067 - Interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation; notice; Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

    15 U.S.C. § 1067   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring the TTAB "to determine and decide the respective rights of registration" when an opposition to registration has been filed