Central Garden & Pet Company v. Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.
469 U.S. 189 (1985) Cited 948 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
553 U.S. 1 (2008) Cited 270 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims for a refund of invalid export tax brought under a statute other than § 7422 were barred
E. J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.
955 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 433 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the mark logos were dissimilar, “it does not appear that the district court committed clear error in relying on the dominant element GALLO for its finding of similarity in sight, sound and meaning”
National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema
937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 82 times
Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”
Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.
308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 45 times
Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
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"
Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.
811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 42 times
Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration
T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac
77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 29 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services
A. Stucki Co. v. Worthington Industries, Inc.
849 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 37 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a holding company's ability to control a subsidiary and stop alleged infringement required imputing liability on the parent
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 94,265 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
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,014 times 98 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1057 - Certificates of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1057 Cited 1,043 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark
Section 1060 - Assignment
15 U.S.C. § 1060 Cited 190 times 13 Legal Analyses
Requiring assignments of federal trademark registrations to be "by instruments in writing"
Section 1053 - Service marks registrable
15 U.S.C. § 1053 Cited 99 times 1 Legal Analyses
Applying same requirement to registration of service marks
Section 1068 - Action of Director in interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation
15 U.S.C. § 1068 Cited 25 times 3 Legal Analyses
Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"

Central Garden & Pet Company v. Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

Holding that claims for a refund of invalid export tax brought under a statute other than § 7422 were barred

Holding that although the mark logos were dissimilar, “it does not appear that the district court committed clear error in relying on the dominant element GALLO for its finding of similarity in sight, sound and meaning”

Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

Holding that a holding company's ability to control a subsidiary and stop alleged infringement required imputing liability on the parent

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

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

Requiring assignments of federal trademark registrations to be "by instruments in writing"

Applying same requirement to registration of service marks

Stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein"