§

Donald A. Gange v. Agility Sports LLC

No. 91194831 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)
Donald A. Gange v. Agility Sports LLC

12 Cited authorities

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

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 45 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  2. T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac

    77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services

  3. Olson v. Ford Motor Co

    410 F. Supp. 2d 855 (D.N.D. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    Case No. 4:04-cv-102. January 25, 2006. Edgar F. Heiskell, III, Kevin W. Ryan, Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen Tweel PLLC, Charlottesville, VA, Steven A. Storslee, Storslee Law Firm, Bismarck, ND, for Plaintiff. Janice K. O'Grady, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Los Gatos, CA, Jennifer K. Huelskoetter, John D. Sear, Wayne D. Struble, Bowman Brooke, Minneapolis, MN, Jonathan P. Sanstead, Pearce Durick, Bismarck, ND, for Defendant. ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE OTHER

  4. Midwest Plastic v. Underwriters Laboratories

    906 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 13 times
    In Midwest Plastic Fabricators, Inc. v. Underwriters Labs. Inc., 906 F.2d 1568, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Federal Circuit—on an appeal discussing a different subsection than the one FCA asserts here—explained that "if a certification mark's owner also allowed the mark to be used as a trademark, there would be a basis for cancellation of the registration."

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. Faultless Starch Co. v. Sales Prod. Assoc

    530 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-618. March 11, 1976. Joseph B. Bowman, Kansas City, Mo. (Lowe, Kokjer, Kircher, Wharton Bowman, Kansas City, Mo.), atty. of record, for appellant. Robert D. Hovey, Kansas City, Mo., atty. of record, for appellee. Schmidt, Johnson, Hovey Williams, Kansas City, Mo., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office 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

  8. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 349,115 times   932 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  9. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,208 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  10. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,375 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  11. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  12. 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"