Edmund Papczun v. I-D Foods Corp.

11 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,251 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Associates, Inc.
999 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 193 times
Finding no claim preclusion in a Title VII case where the prior litigation involved failure to process a COBRA request for post-termination medical coverage
Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems
223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 78 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply
Young Engineers v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 103 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a previous final judgment on a claim extinguishes "all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action" arose
The Haytian Republic
154 U.S. 118 (1894) Cited 242 times
Explaining that a party is "not at liberty to split up his demand, and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a portion of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to be presented in a second suit, if the first fail. There would be no end to litigation if such a practice were permissible."
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.
448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 20 times
Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion
International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.
220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 23 times
Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"
Chromalloy American Corp. v. Kenneth Gordon
736 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 10 times
Holding that infringement litigation between different marks did not claim preclude later petition in opposition to registration
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 Cited 33,294 times 13 Legal Analyses
Adopting similar language for acquiring default judgment against the United States
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 2,953 times 96 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 271 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"

Edmund Papczun v. I-D Foods Corp.

11 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Finding no claim preclusion in a Title VII case where the prior litigation involved failure to process a COBRA request for post-termination medical coverage

Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

Holding that a previous final judgment on a claim extinguishes "all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action" arose

Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

Holding that infringement litigation between different marks did not claim preclude later petition in opposition to registration

Adopting similar language for acquiring default judgment against the United States

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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"