§

Caymus Vineyards v. Caymus Medical, Inc.

No. 91204667 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2013)
Caymus Vineyards v. Caymus Medical, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 272,483 times   282 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 285,173 times   370 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech LLC (In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.)

    681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 685 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court inappropriately engaged in claim construction at the pleading stage

  4. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 176 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  5. Gen. Electro Music Corp. v. Samick Music Corp.

    19 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 50 times
    Finding a false statement that the patentee had conducted a prior art search to be material because it induced reliance by the PTO in granting a petition to make special

  6. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith

    828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 58 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding applicant's incontestable registration of a service mark for "cash management account" did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services

  7. Young v. AGB Corp.

    152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 20 times

    No. 98-1055 DECIDED: August 17, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Sharon Dinwiddie, Burke Blue, P.A., of Panama City, Florida, argued for appellant. On the brief was Edward A. Hutchinson, Jr. Pamela Ann Bresnahan, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Cory M. Amron. Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. John

  8. Sunrise Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Fred S.A

    175 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that Duraco and Knitwaves are consistent with the principle that a trade dress which does not indicate source is generic and unprotectable

  9. King Automotive v. Speedy Muffler King

    667 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 81-566. December 17, 1981. Frank H. Foster, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant. John V. Sobesky and Ernest A. Beutler, Jr., Birmingham, Mich., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) of a decision granting appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's amended

  10. W.D. Byron Sons v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co.

    377 F.2d 1001 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7806. May 25, 1967. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Sidney A. Diamond, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Charles F. Meroni, Charles F. Meroni, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal by opposer-petitioner Byron from the

  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 367,635 times   969 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 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 166,928 times   199 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,480 times   95 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

  14. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,587 times   342 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  15. Rule 10 - Form of Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 10   Cited 21,041 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding exhibits attached to complaint may be treated as part of complaint for purposes of ruling on 12(b) motion

  16. Section 1115 - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses

    15 U.S.C. § 1115   Cited 1,970 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that registration of a mark "shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark" but "shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect"

  17. Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions

    15 U.S.C. § 1065   Cited 1,135 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing the requirements for incontestability

  18. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 934 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  19. 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