§

BLVD Supply, LLC v. Juan Chen

No. 92059168 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2015)
BLVD Supply, LLC v. Juan Chen

14 Cited authorities

  1. Allen v. McCurry

    449 U.S. 90 (1980)   Cited 5,776 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action

  2. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education

    465 U.S. 75 (1984)   Cited 3,559 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"

  3. 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

  4. Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Associates, Inc.

    999 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 193 times
    Finding no claim preclusion in a Title VII case where the prior litigation involved failure to process a COBRA request for post-termination medical coverage

  5. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 78 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

  6. The Haytian Republic

    154 U.S. 118 (1894)   Cited 242 times
    Explaining that a party is "not at liberty to split up his demand, and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a portion of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to be presented in a second suit, if the first fail. There would be no end to litigation if such a practice were permissible."

  7. Kreager v. General Electric Company

    497 F.2d 468 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 65 times
    Finding sole shareholder and officer who controlled action involving corporation "had an identity of interest with [the company] and was bound by judgment against it"

  8. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  9. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  10. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,300 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit