§

CMDW, Inc. v. Anthony R. Falwell

No. 92058689 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2015)
CMDW, Inc. v. Anthony R. Falwell

15 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,235 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Allen v. McCurry

    449 U.S. 90 (1980)   Cited 5,776 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action

  3. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education

    465 U.S. 75 (1984)   Cited 3,559 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"

  4. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,251 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  5. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.

    672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 146 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet

  6. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  7. Nasalok Coat v. Nylok

    522 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petition for cancelation of trademark that had been awarded through default judgment was precluded because the petition's effect was to collaterally attack a judgment in an infringement action

  8. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  9. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  10. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  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 349,026 times   931 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 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,300 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  13. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 36,072 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney