§

Finck Cigar Co. v. el Duque Group, Inc.

No. 92029785 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2001)
Finck Cigar Co. v. el Duque Group, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,686 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. Riehle v. Margolies

    279 U.S. 218 (1929)   Cited 262 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may prosecute a claim which arose prior to the appointment of the receiver but may not then execute upon the judgment

  3. Young Engineers v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 103 times   3 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

  4. International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co.

    727 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the Ninth Circuit's earlier determination that a name and emblem did not serve as a trademark required cancellation of the registration

  5. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.

    105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word CAFÉ is descriptive of applicant's restaurant services

  6. 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"

  7. 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

  8. Wells Cargo, Inc. v. Wells Cargo, Inc.

    606 F.2d 961 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal No. 78-514. October 11, 1979. William D. Stokes, Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellant. Henry C. Bunsow, San Francisco, Cal., attorney of record, for appellee; Stephen S. Townsend, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and WATSON, Judge. The Honorable James L. Watson, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. MARKEY, Chief Judge

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,252 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  10. Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions

    15 U.S.C. § 1065   Cited 1,127 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing the requirements for incontestability

  11. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 918 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  12. Section 1058 - Duration, affidavits and fees

    15 U.S.C. § 1058   Cited 242 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Providing a ten-year duration for registered marks