§

City National Bank v. OPGI Management GP Inc./Gestion OPGI Inc.

No. 92050730 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013)
City National Bank v. OPGI Management GP Inc./Gestion OPGI Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  4. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 82 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  5. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  6. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  7. Huthwaite, Inc. v. Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 02-1478-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2003)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the commercial use requirement of the FTDA is "virtually synonymous with the `in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods and services' requirement" of the Lanham Act

  8. In re Dr Pepper Co.

    836 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that a contest promoting one's own goods is not an independent service

  9. Midwest Plastic v. Underwriters Laboratories

    906 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 13 times
    In Midwest Plastic Fabricators, Inc. v. Underwriters Labs. Inc., 906 F.2d 1568, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Federal Circuit—on an appeal discussing a different subsection than the one FCA asserts here—explained that "if a certification mark's owner also allowed the mark to be used as a trademark, there would be a basis for cancellation of the registration."

  10. American Intern. Reinsurance Co. v. Airco

    570 F.2d 941 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that a retirement plan offered by a company solely to its own employees was a "service" under the Lanham Act

  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,273 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  12. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,528 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

  13. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,954 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  14. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 888 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  15. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"