Be Sport, Inc. v. Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel

20 Cited authorities

Taylor v. Sturgell
553 U.S. 880 (2008) Cited 3,195 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 28,872 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,251 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank
574 U.S. 418 (2015) Cited 89 times 17 Legal Analyses
Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question
Mothers Restaurant, v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.
723 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 81 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.
719 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 28 times
Recognizing that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not have issue preclusive effect
Pactiv Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co.
449 F.3d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 35 times 3 Legal Analyses
Noting that "parties can, in a separate agreement, ... reserve the right to litigate a claim that would otherwise be barred by" claim preclusion
Kearns v. General Motors Corp.
94 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 47 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding res judicata did not bar patent infringement claims that were not before court in earlier case dismissed by court
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 13 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.
448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 20 times
Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,428 times 91 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
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,316 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,806 times 124 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 271 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"
Section 1126 - International conventions
15 U.S.C. § 1126 Cited 184 times 29 Legal Analyses
Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

Be Sport, Inc. v. Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel

20 Cited authorities

Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question

Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.

Recognizing that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not have issue preclusive effect

Noting that "parties can, in a separate agreement, ... reserve the right to litigate a claim that would otherwise be barred by" claim preclusion

Concluding res judicata did not bar patent infringement claims that were not before court in earlier case dismissed by court

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

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

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"

Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"