Central Mfg. Inc. v. Astec Industries, Inc.
6 Cited authorities
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 193 times 33 Legal AnalysesReciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Weiner King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.
615 F.2d 512 (C.C.P.A. 1980) Cited 41 timesHolding that the unregistered company did not infringe on the registered company's rights when the unregistered company started using the mark first, was in a completely different geographical area, and had no plans to expand
Colony Foods, Inc. v. Sagemark, Ltd.
735 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 8 timesRejecting a party's argument that the use of the word "HOBO" in several of its marks created a "family", and stating that the party failed to establish, for example, by a survey, that the term HOBO is used in the public in connection with restaurant services to identify the party exclusively.
Grace Co. v. City of Los Angeles
278 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1960) Cited 18 timesNo. 16388. April 14, 1960. McCutchen, Black, Harnagel Shea, Philip K. Verleger, Howard J. Privett, Los Angeles, Cal., Jack T. Swafford, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Arthur W. Nordstrom, Asst. City Atty., C.N. Perkins, Walter C. Foster, Deputy City Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., Trippet, Yoakum, Stearns Ballantyne, F.B. Yoakum, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel, for appellee. Before BARNES, HAMLIN and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges. HAMLIN, Circuit Judge. This is a diversity
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 96,351 times 95 Legal AnalysesFinding 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