§

Benko Dental Supply Co. v. Colur World, LLC

No. 92065633 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)
Benko Dental Supply Co. v. Colur World, LLC

16 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,289 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. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,295 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  3. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 576 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  4. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 175 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  5. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

    731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 279 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

  6. L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.

    192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

  7. 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 ”

  8. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  9. Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.

    945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors

  10. Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, L.L.C.

    600 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 4 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that we give the TTAB significant latitude in applying the TBMP when the language therein is "permissive"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 338,983 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,797 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

  13. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 2.129 - Oral argument; reconsideration

    37 C.F.R. § 2.129   Cited 2 times

    (a) If a party desires to have an oral argument at final hearing, the party shall request such argument by a separate notice filed not later than ten days after the due date for the filing of the last reply brief in the proceeding. Oral arguments will be heard by at least three Administrative Trademark Judges or other statutory members of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at the time specified in the notice of hearing. If any party appears at the specified time, that party will be heard. Parties