§

Big O Tires, Inc. v. Bigfoot 4x4, Inc.Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. v. Big O Tires, Inc.

No. 91163232 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2006)
Big O Tires, Inc. v. Bigfoot 4x4, Inc.Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. v. Big O Tires, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,657 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. Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

    349 U.S. 322 (1955)   Cited 889 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

  3. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  4. 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.”

  5. Novamedix, Ltd. v. NDM Acquisition Corp.

    166 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 30 times
    Concluding the UCC did not apply to a settlement agreement that provided for the delivery of certain inventory because its primary purpose was to settle patent infringement claims

  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. 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

  9. 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"

  10. Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    772 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 16 times

    Appeal No. 85-902. September 6, 1985. Dean A. Olds, Willian, Brinks, Olds, Hofer, Gilson Lione, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., argued for appellant. With him on brief was Thomas M. O'Malley, Chicago, Ill. Boyd A. Tracy, Kimberly-Clark Corp., Neenah, Wis., of counsel. George P. McAndrews, Allegretti, Newitt, Witcoff McAndrews, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., argued for appellee. With him on brief were L. Michael Jarvis, Allegretti, Newitt, Witcoff McAndrews, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., of counsel, and Joseph D. Kaufman, Fort

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 359,794 times   954 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,206 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  13. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 51,338 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  14. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,597 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."