Food Global Innovation GP LLC v. Nguyen

15 Cited authorities

Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,085 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 72 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"
Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.
899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 82 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes
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.”
Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum
586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 27 times
Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing
Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria
892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 13 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
Lens.Com, Inc. v. 1–800 Contacts, Inc.
686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 8 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Lens.com, the court found that the Lens.com software facilitated the customers' online ordering, providing customers an enhanced consumer experience that provided greater value to Lens.com's online retail services.
West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants
31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 21 times
Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 96,222 times 664 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,806 times 124 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 2,954 times 96 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1057 - Certificates of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1057 Cited 1,027 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 888 times 48 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
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"

Food Global Innovation GP LLC v. Nguyen

15 Cited authorities

Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"

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"

Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

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

Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

In Lens.com, the court found that the Lens.com software facilitated the customers' online ordering, providing customers an enhanced consumer experience that provided greater value to Lens.com's online retail services.

Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

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"