§

Cococare Products, Inc. v. E.T. Browne Drug Co., Inc.

No. 91169074 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2011)
Cococare Products, Inc. v. E.T. Browne Drug Co., Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 223,195 times   42 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. Test Masters Educ. Serv., Inc. v. Singh

    428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 846 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Singh was precluded from re-litigating issue of secondary meaning

  3. E.T. Browne Drug v. Cococare

    538 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that use of the phrase “Palmer's Cocoa Butter Formula” was not probative on the question of whether the phrase “Cocoa Butter Formula” had acquired secondary meaning

  4. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  5. Mothers Restaurant, v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.

    723 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.

  6. 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.”

  7. Continental Can Co., U.S. A. v. Marshall

    603 F.2d 590 (7th Cir. 1979)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that in the administrative adjudication context, it is “rather fundamental” and is a “basic tenet of due process” that “the Government cannot, without violating due process, needlessly require a party to undergo the burdens of litigation” because “[t]he Government is not a ringmaster for whom individuals and corporations must jump through a hoop at their own expense each time it commands”

  8. Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co.

    840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding secondary meaning for shape of guitar head always appearing in advertising and promotional literature

  9. 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"

  10. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 340,523 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1119 - Power of court over registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1119   Cited 849 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court the power in an action involving a registered mark to order the cancellation of a registration