Edom Labora-tories, Inc. v. Glenn Lichter

11 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 221,661 times 41 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"
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman
900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 51 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith
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"
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.
448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 20 times
Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion
Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc.
739 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 49 times
Holding that the nonmovant "must set out, usually in an affidavit by one with knowledge of specific facts, what specific evidence could be offered at trial."
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.
849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 4 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 337,863 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,607 times 274 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"
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"

Edom Labora-tories, Inc. v. Glenn Lichter

11 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"

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

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

Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

Holding that the nonmovant "must set out, usually in an affidavit by one with knowledge of specific facts, what specific evidence could be offered at trial."

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 a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

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

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"

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"