Corporation Cimex, S.A. v. DM Enterprises & Distributors Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 221,149 times 41 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"
National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema
937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 83 times
Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”
Havana Club Holding S.A. v. Galleon S.A
203 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 51 times
Holding that the "related to" language of § 515.527 should be interpreted narrowly as it creates an exception to the broad prohibitions of the embargo
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.”
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Bacardi Corp. v. Domenech
311 U.S. 150 (1940) Cited 58 times
Affirming the "accepted canon" that treaties must be construed "liberally" to effectuate "the purpose which animate" them
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.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 337,021 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1126 - International conventions
15 U.S.C. § 1126 Cited 185 times 29 Legal Analyses
Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"
Section 515.201 - Transactions involving designated foreign countries or their nationals; effective date
31 C.F.R. § 515.201 Cited 66 times 2 Legal Analyses
Defining effective date

Corporation Cimex, S.A. v. DM Enterprises & Distributors Inc.

10 Cited authorities

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"

Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

Holding that the "related to" language of § 515.527 should be interpreted narrowly as it creates an exception to the broad prohibitions of the embargo

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Affirming the "accepted canon" that treaties must be construed "liberally" to effectuate "the purpose which animate" them

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

Defining effective date