Eddy Packing Co., Inc. v. HEB Grocery Company

18 Cited authorities

  1. 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
  2. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration
  3. 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"
  4. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc.

    777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Holding "[e]vidence of the public's understanding of term," for purposes of establishing if mark is descriptive, "may be obtained from any competent source, including .^.^. dictionaries"
  5. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc.

    782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing decision of TTAB that "Fire Chief," as applied to monthly magazine circulated to fire departments, was generic
  6. Ayer v. United States

    902 F.2d 1038 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that Air Force decision not to include safety railings in missile launch control chamber fell within the discretionary function exception
  7. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.

    940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"
  8. Henri's Food Products Co. v. Tasty Snacks

    817 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that term "Tast-Tee" describes salad dressing
  9. Dan Robbins Associates v. Questor Corp.

    599 F.2d 1009 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 27 times
    Involving cancellation for likelihood of confusion
  10. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 101,886 times   701 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 34   Cited 13,908 times   157 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."
  13. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 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"