§

Auburn Farms, Inc. v. McKee Foods Corp.

No. 92022060 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 1999)
Auburn Farms, Inc. v. McKee Foods Corp.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc.

    689 F.2d 666 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 149 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant has no duty to investigate and disclose to the PTO all other possible users of the same or similar mark

  2. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 86 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  3. 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

  4. Rivard v. Linville

    133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

  5. Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc.

    805 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1986)   Cited 23 times
    In AmBrit, the trademark holder failed to use the mark for 48 years, and then resumed extensive use. During the interim, however, a competitor used a similar mark in commerce.

  6. Mission Dry Corp. v. Seven-Up Co.

    193 F.2d 201 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5826. December 18, 1951. Albert J. Fihe, Burbank, Cal. (Munson H. Lane, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. John H. Cassidy, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. JACKSON, Judge. On May 2, 1938, appellant filed its application, serial No. 405,933 to register the trade-mark "Charge Up" as applied to non-alcoholic, maltless beverages used as soft drinks, together with syrups and extracts for preparing

  7. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,314 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