§

Ashland Licensing & Intellectual Property LLC and Valvoline Licensing and IP LLC v. Sunpoint International Group USA Corp.

92057294 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2019)
Ashland Licensing & Intellectual Property LLC and Valvoline Licensing and IP LLC v. Sunpoint International Group USA Corp.

63 Cited authorities

  1. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.

    960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 655 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that equitable estoppel is a cognizable defense against patent infringement

  2. Fidelity Construction Co. v. U.S.

    464 U.S. 826 (1983)   Cited 159 times
    Applying Compton favorably

  3. Advanced Cardiovascular v. Scimed Life

    988 F.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in a Section 256 claim, laches cannot be decided at the pleading stage "based solely on presumptions"

  4. State Contract Eng. v. Condotte America

    346 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 115 times
    Finding issue of material fact precluding summary judgment given conflicting expert testimony as to whether a prior art reference was analogous

  5. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  6. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 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"

  7. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  8. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 82 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  9. Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp.

    572 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “unsworn attorney argument ... is not evidence”

  10. Recot, Inc. v. Becton

    214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,273 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,953 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  13. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,026 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  14. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 888 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  15. Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings

    15 U.S.C. § 1069   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"

  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 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  18. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified

  19. Section 2.88 - Statement of use after notice of allowance

    37 C.F.R. § 2.88   Cited 10 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Describing the USPTO's requirements for filing a statement of use

  20. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods

  21. Section 2.114 - Answer

    37 C.F.R. § 2.114   Cited 5 times
    Identifying " defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the petition," as the sole compulsory counterclaim to a cancellation petition

  22. Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.128   Cited 3 times
    Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB