§

Busy Beauty, Inc. v. JPB Group, LLC

92069340 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2019)
Busy Beauty, Inc. v. JPB Group, LLC

20 Cited authorities

  1. West v. the Goodyear Tire Rubber Company

    167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 703 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because dismissal is a drastic remedy, it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances, usually after consideration of alternative, less drastic sanctions."

  2. Silvestri v. General Motors Corp.

    271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 635 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding sanctions for spoliation appropriate only to curb abuses of the judicial process

  3. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.

    269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010)   Cited 295 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[i]n the Fourth Circuit, for a court to impose some form of sanctions for spoliation, any fault - be it bad faith, willfulness, gross negligence or ordinary negligence - is a sufficiently culpable mindset" and noting that "[u]nder existing case law, the nuanced, fact-specific differences among these states of mind become significant in determining what sanctions are appropriate"

  4. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 192 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party must have "intended to impair the ability" of a litigant to put on a case or defend itself to find "bad faith" (quoting Schmid , 13 F.3d at 80 )

  5. Barbera v. Pearson Educ., Inc.

    906 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2018)   Cited 143 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury could not infer pretext from two employer statements that were "not mutually exclusive[; b]oth could be true without violating the principle of non-contradiction"

  6. Cat3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc.

    164 F. Supp. 3d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 109 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, where a party seeks "terminating sanctions" pursuant to Rule 37(e), "it is appropriate to utilize the clear and convincing standard" in making a finding of intent to deprive

  7. Turner v. United States

    736 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2013)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the duty to preserve evidence was not triggered because the plaintiff had not sent a preservation demand or any other correspondence threatening litigation

  8. Jenkins v. Woody

    Civil Action No. 3:15cv355 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2017)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that inmate's death in custody triggered duty to preserve immediately

  9. Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Merus N.V.

    864 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Regeneron, the court sanctioned the patentee, and pointed to nine instances of litigation misconduct, drawing an adverse inference as to specific intent to deceive the PTO.

  10. Applebaum v. Target Corp.

    831 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 49 times
    Noting that " showing of negligence or even gross negligence will not do the trick" for a party seeking an adverse inference instruction for the destruction of electronic information

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 96,222 times   664 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,415 times   323 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  13. Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 34   Cited 13,267 times   151 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."

  14. 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

  15. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods

  16. Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.128   Cited 3 times
    Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB

  17. Section 2.129 - Oral argument; reconsideration

    37 C.F.R. § 2.129   Cited 2 times

    (a) If a party desires to have an oral argument at final hearing, the party shall request such argument by a separate notice filed not later than ten days after the due date for the filing of the last reply brief in the proceeding. Oral arguments will be heard by at least three Administrative Trademark Judges or other statutory members of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at the time specified in the notice of hearing. If any party appears at the specified time, that party will be heard. Parties