Diageo North America, Inc. v. Captain Russell Corp.

14 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,274 times 40 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"
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 188 times 30 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 72 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 57 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 times
No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
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
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.
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
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"
King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen
496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 8 times
Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)
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
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,447 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,273 times 129 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Rule 3 - Commencing an Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 Cited 2,987 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

Diageo North America, Inc. v. Captain Russell Corp.

14 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"

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

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

Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors

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

Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

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"

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

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"