§

Dennis Oley, Stormprepare, LLC v. New Imagitas, Inc.

92067595 (T.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)
Dennis Oley, Stormprepare, LLC v. New Imagitas, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

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

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,068 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. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

    174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,116 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of competitor's trademark in metatags, which are not visible on a website, is actionable under the Lanham Act

  3. U.S.A. v. Washington

    498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that machine-generated data from testing defendant's blood sample was not testimonial statement

  4. U.S. v. Hamilton

    413 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that information that "was automatically generated by computer without the assistance or input of a person" was not a "statement" within the meaning of Rule 801

  5. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  6. 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.”

  7. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  8. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  9. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc.

    901 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 10 times

    2018-1688 08-27-2018 ZHENG CAI, DBA Tai Chi Green Tea Inc., Appellant v. DIAMOND HONG, INC., Appellee Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Hughes, Circuit Judges

  10. Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

    640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 20 times
    Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context

  11. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 11,376 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

  12. Rule 36 - Requests for Admission

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 36   Cited 6,378 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 27 - Effect of partial invalidity

    15 U.S.C. § 27   Cited 6 times

    If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act shall, for any reason, be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. 15 U.S.C. § 27 Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §28, formerly §26, 38 Stat. 740; renumbered §27, Pub. L. 96-493

  16. 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"