§

Dynamark Security Centers, Inc. v. Intruder Alert Systems of San Antonio, Inc.

No. 94001012 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 1997)
Dynamark Security Centers, Inc. v. Intruder Alert Systems of San Antonio, Inc.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Weiner King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.

    615 F.2d 512 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the unregistered company did not infringe on the registered company's rights when the unregistered company started using the mark first, was in a completely different geographical area, and had no plans to expand

  2. In re Beatrice Foods Co.

    429 F.2d 466 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 49 times
    In Beatrice Foods, our predecessor court held that "[o]nce there has been a determination that both parties are entitled to a federal registration, the extent to which those registrations are to be restricted territorially must... be governed by the statutory standard of likelihood of confusion."

  3. Amalgamated Bank, N.Y. v. Amalgamated Trust

    842 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    No. 87-1526. March 23, 1988. Donald A. Kaul of Brownstein, Zeidman and Schomer, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant. Robert W. Sacoff of Pattishall, McAuliffe Hofstetter, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee Amalgamated Trust. Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee PTO. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., and Nancy C. Slutter, Asst. Sol. Appeal from the Trademark and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit

  4. Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 25   Cited 11,186 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities