§

Brookeville Brewing LLC v. IE Beer Farm

92072691 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2021)
Brookeville Brewing LLC v. IE Beer Farm

27 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,068 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 957 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  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. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  5. In re Google Tech.

    980 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that courts and litigants often use the term "waiver" when applying the doctrine of forfeiture

  6. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  7. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  8. In re Nat. Data Corp.

    753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark"

  9. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  10. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,434 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

  12. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 926 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services