§

Berta Hesen-Minten v. Emma L. Petersen and Susan L. Aucoin

No. 91192706 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)
Berta Hesen-Minten v. Emma L. Petersen and Susan L. Aucoin

16 Cited authorities

  1. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

    174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,085 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  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. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  5. Firsthealth v. Carefirst

    479 F.3d 825 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no excusable neglect where the second and third factors weighed against such a finding

  6. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

  7. Olson v. Ford Motor Co

    410 F. Supp. 2d 855 (D.N.D. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    Case No. 4:04-cv-102. January 25, 2006. Edgar F. Heiskell, III, Kevin W. Ryan, Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen Tweel PLLC, Charlottesville, VA, Steven A. Storslee, Storslee Law Firm, Bismarck, ND, for Plaintiff. Janice K. O'Grady, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Los Gatos, CA, Jennifer K. Huelskoetter, John D. Sear, Wayne D. Struble, Bowman Brooke, Minneapolis, MN, Jonathan P. Sanstead, Pearce Durick, Bismarck, ND, for Defendant. ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE OTHER

  8. Benedict v. Super Bakery, Inc.

    665 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    No. 2011–1131.Cancellation No. 92047859. 2011-12-28 Ward E. BENEDICT, Appellant, v. SUPER BAKERY, INCORPORATED, Appellee. Ward E. Benedict, of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, pro se. David G. Oberdick, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP, of Pittsburgh, PA, for appellee. NEWMAN Ward E. Benedict, of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, pro se. David G. Oberdick, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP, of Pittsburgh, PA, for appellee. Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Ward E. Benedict

  9. Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.

    823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”

  10. Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings

    576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 11 times
    Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,208 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. 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

  13. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  14. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 146 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  15. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 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"