§

ATS Health & Beauty Care Corporation v. LE' ess

92074012 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)
ATS Health & Beauty Care Corporation v. LE' ess

17 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,322 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.

    456 U.S. 461 (1982)   Cited 2,504 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "full and fair opportunity to litigate" is satisfied by minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment

  3. Brown v. Felsen

    442 U.S. 127 (1979)   Cited 2,341 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[r]es judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding."

  4. Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

    349 U.S. 322 (1955)   Cited 891 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

  5. Riehle v. Margolies

    279 U.S. 218 (1929)   Cited 262 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may prosecute a claim which arose prior to the appointment of the receiver but may not then execute upon the judgment

  6. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 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

  7. Young Engineers v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 103 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a previous final judgment on a claim extinguishes "all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action" arose

  8. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  9. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  10. 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.

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,042 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 929 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  13. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"