§

Biogrand Co., Ltd. v. Sunbio Corporation

92067124 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020)
Biogrand Co., Ltd. v. Sunbio Corporation

14 Cited authorities

  1. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.

    486 U.S. 281 (1988)   Cited 812 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute

  2. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  3. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  4. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  5. Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.

    859 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding decision of USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that defendant, rather than plaintiff, owned disputed trademark, even though plaintiff had registered the trademark and defendant had not, because defendant was first to use trademark in commerce

  6. Application of Deister Concentrator Company

    289 F.2d 496 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 67 times
    Rejecting the need to consider advertising "gimmicks" designed to acquaint the public with a mark that is incapable of acquiring secondary meaning

  7. Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

    534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect

  8. Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.

    849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

  9. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 11,394 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,914 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  11. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,038 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 times   274 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"

  13. Rule 44.1 - Determining Foreign Law

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1   Cited 1,235 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Noting the court's determination of foreign law is treated as a question of law

  14. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified