§

Eyal Balle v. Children’s Apparel Network, Ltd.

No. 92054165 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)
Eyal Balle v. Children’s Apparel Network, Ltd.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,657 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"

  2. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    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."

  3. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  5. In re Mighty Leaf Tea

    601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

  6. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  7. 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.

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

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  9. Ilco Corp. v. Ideal Security Hardware Corp.

    527 F.2d 1221 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that use of one mark can inure to the benefit of a related mark only if they provide a "single and continuing commercial impression"

  10. MYRURGIA v. COMPTOIR DE LA PARFUMERIE, ETC

    441 F.2d 673 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8401. May 13, 1971. Alex Friedman, Martin J. Beran, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. Russell L. Law, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. Appeal is taken from the decision of The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing the opposition filed by appellant, Myrurgia, S.A., to registration of the trademark "SENORITA" for cologne, toilet

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,206 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit