Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

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"

Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

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

Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.

Holding that the reduction in compensatory damages did not entitle the plaintiff to a new trial since it "was a purely legal issue," and emphasizing that, "[a]s a matter of law, there was no support for the compensatory damages award beyond that awarded by the district court"

Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

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

Advantage Rent-A-Car Inc. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Co.

Finding that Enterprise's showing that it had spent more than $130 million on advertising containing mark "We'll Pick You Up" in various media outlets, including commercials shown on prime time national television, did not demonstrate necessary degree of fame

Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

Philip Morris Inc. v. K2 Corp.

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

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

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

Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"