§

DaimlerChrysler Corporation and Chrysler, LLC v. American Motors Corporation

No. 92045099 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2010)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation and Chrysler, LLC v. American Motors Corporation

14 Cited authorities

  1. Star Scientific v. R.J. Tobacco

    537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 398 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intent may be proven circumstantially, "[b]ut such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement"

  2. 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.”

  3. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

  4. 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"

  5. In re Bose Corp.

    476 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing in the context of administrative proceedings that courts should "exercise caution in applying claim preclusion in an ex parte proceeding"

  6. 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.

  7. Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.

    945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors

  8. Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.

    823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”

  9. King Automotive v. Speedy Muffler King

    667 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 81-566. December 17, 1981. Frank H. Foster, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant. John V. Sobesky and Ernest A. Beutler, Jr., Birmingham, Mich., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) of a decision granting appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's amended

  10. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 338,276 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,281 times   337 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 926 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  14. Section 2.127 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 2.127   Cited 8 times

    (a) Every motion must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126 . It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved