§

Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG

No. 91174518 (T.T.A.B. May. 28, 2008)
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG

12 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 221,661 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. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  3. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 83 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  4. Gardiner, Kamya Asoc., P.C. v. Jackson

    467 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 27 times
    Explaining that "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous, before resorting to the doctrine of contra proferentem, we may appropriately look to extrinsic evidence to aid in our interpretation of the contract"

  5. Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.

    971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 26 times
    Stating that “a laches or estoppel defense in an opposition (or cancellation) proceeding may be based upon the Opposer's failure to object to an Applicant's registration of substantially the same mark ”

  6. Interstate Gen. Govt. Contractors v. Stone

    980 F.2d 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 25 times

    No. 92-1079. December 3, 1992. Glen W. Clark, Jr., Palmer, Howard Clark, Austell, Ga., argued, for appellant. Franklin E. White, Jr., Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Thomas W. Petersen, Asst. Director. Also on the brief was Major Robert L. Duecaster, Dept. of Army, of counsel. Appeal from the Armed Services Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge

  7. 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.

  8. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  9. Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc.

    705 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that challenger established standing under § 1064 notwithstanding the parties’ written agreement not to challenge each other's registration or each other's rights to use and sell goods under the mark

  10. 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"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 337,863 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit