§

Dan Foam ApS v. Sleep Innovations, Inc.

No. 92054201 (T.T.A.B. May. 13, 2013)
Dan Foam ApS v. Sleep Innovations, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Firefighters' Institute v. City of St. Louis

    220 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that the district court properly quashed a subpoena duces tecum because service via facsimile and regular mail did not comply with the personal service requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)

  2. Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc.

    911 F. Supp. 1351 (D. Kan. 1995)   Cited 109 times
    In Midland Brake, the district court concluded that the Tenth Circuit would not find estoppel to be inapplicable where plaintiff, who brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, previously had argued to the Social Security Administration that he was totally disabled and unable to work.

  3. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 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"

  4. Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metropolitan Police

    530 F. Supp. 2d 282 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 29 times
    Holding gross negligence can constitute culpable state of mind

  5. Murphy v. Board of Educ. of Rochester City School Dist.

    196 F.R.D. 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that counsel repeatedly and unrepentantly failed to provide notice

  6. Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.

    236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times
    Finding no error because, "while the Board did not make explicit findings about the strength of the [opposer’s mark], the Board’s opinion reveals that the Board considered this factor"

  7. In re Grand Jury Sub. John Doe

    584 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 23 times
    Recognizing that unless a party is claiming that subpoenaed documents are privileged, he lacks standing to object to a subpoena directed to a third party

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  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 330,364 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,777 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

  13. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,729 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  14. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,849 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay