§

Febal Cucine, S.p.A. v. Mariner Ventures, Inc.

No. 92042704 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2007)
Febal Cucine, S.p.A. v. Mariner Ventures, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

  1. United Phos., Ltd. v. Midland Fum., Inc.

    205 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2000)   Cited 325 times
    Holding that enhanced damages under the Lanham Act were not permissible when the plaintiff was already "adequately compensated"

  2. Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC International, Ltd.

    96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying the manufacturer-distributor paradigm to a trademark dispute between Sengoku (who manufactured heaters) and RMC (who arranged for retailer purchases), even though "Sengoku sold the heaters to an independent trading company, Zenith & Co., who then sold them to RMC"

  3. 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"

  4. 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.”

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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"

  8. Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch

    467 F.2d 501 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 22 times
    Permitting reliance on copyrighted appearance of stuffed rag doll in opposition and cancellation proceedings

  9. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  10. Hank Thorp, Inc. v. Minilite, Inc.

    474 F. Supp. 228 (D. Del. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    Civ. A. No. 77-149. July 10, 1979. Rudolf E. Hutz and John D. Fairchild, of Connolly, Bove and Lodge, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff. John G. Abramo, of Abramo Abramo, Wilmington, Del., for defendant. OPINION STAPLETON, District Judge: The plaintiff, Hank Thorp, Inc., filed a complaint on April 18, 1977, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition by the defendant, Minilite, Inc. Minilite, Inc. filed a counterclaim requesting that plaintiff's trademark registration be cancelled. On June

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,882 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,043 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 917 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  14. Section 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 185 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

  15. 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"