Daniel J. Quirk, Inc. v. Village Car Company

25 Cited authorities

In re Bose Corp.
580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 175 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO
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"
Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.
811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 42 times
Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration
Tesco Corp. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc.
904 F. Supp. 2d 622 (S.D. Tex. 2012) Cited 10 times
Civil Action No. H–08–2531. 2012-10-19 TESCO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, INC., National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Offshore Energy Services, Inc., and Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., Defendants. Glenn A. Ballard, Jr., Alicia L. Hinds, Andrew William Zeve, John F. Luman, III, Mateo Z. Fowler, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. Robert M. Bowick, Jr., John Wesley Raley, III, Raley & Bowick L.L.P., Bruce R. Coulombe, The Matthews Firm, Guy E. Matthews
Wichita Clinic, P.A. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
45 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Kan. 1999) Cited 21 times
Holding that evidence that defendants violated Medicare rules "would not establish that plaintiffs have suffered an antitrust injury"
Underberg v. U.S.
362 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (D.N.M. 2005) Cited 12 times
Noting that admissions cannot be overcome with contradictory affidavit or other new evidence at summary judgment stage
Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Hudson United Bank
653 F.2d 766 (3d Cir. 1981) Cited 38 times
Holding that interrogatory answers are not judicial admissions
West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants
31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 21 times
Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse
112 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Va. 2015) Cited 1 times 20 Legal Analyses
Affirming cancellation of REDSKINS
First Niagara Ins. v. First Niagara Fin
476 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 5 times 1 Legal Analyses
Permitting a foreign user to oppose a trademark application based solely on use, as opposed to use in commerce, of a mark in the United States
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,734 times 77 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Cited 11,376 times 22 Legal Analyses
Adopting Rule 30(b)
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,036 times 99 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,608 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"
Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings
37 C.F.R. § 2.52 Cited 29 times
Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”
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"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

Daniel J. Quirk, Inc. v. Village Car Company

25 Cited authorities

Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

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

Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

Holding that evidence that defendants violated Medicare rules "would not establish that plaintiffs have suffered an antitrust injury"

Noting that admissions cannot be overcome with contradictory affidavit or other new evidence at summary judgment stage

Holding that interrogatory answers are not judicial admissions

Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

Affirming cancellation of REDSKINS

Permitting a foreign user to oppose a trademark application based solely on use, as opposed to use in commerce, of a mark in the United States

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Adopting Rule 30(b)

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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"

Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"