§

CollegePATH, Inc. v. Christine L. Sylvain

91248169 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021)
CollegePATH, Inc. v. Christine L. Sylvain

40 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,110 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 262 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  3. Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.

    318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003)   Cited 741 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that opponent of evidence was "surprised" by expert opinion provided in untimely supplemental report because, prior to submission of supplemental report, expert had stated in his deposition that "he had completed his opinions"

  4. Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A

    429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 156 times
    Holding that "this court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings under the law of the regional circuit"

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

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  6. Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd.

    544 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 216 times
    Holding that scarf designer could properly prevent use of her tradename on cosmetics

  7. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  8. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  9. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 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"

  10. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 30 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  11. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 48,948 times   339 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,840 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  13. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 4,091 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  14. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,921 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  15. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,615 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  16. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 149 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  17. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  18. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods