Fumeroism, LLC v. John Beltran

14 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,274 times 40 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"
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."
Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems
223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 78 times 2 Legal Analyses
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
Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc.
912 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 67 times
Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.
719 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 28 times
Recognizing that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not have issue preclusive effect
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group
637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 27 times 3 Legal Analyses
Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.
424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 23 times
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.
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
Williams v. Five Platters, Inc.
510 F.2d 963 (C.C.P.A. 1975) Cited 9 times
Patent Appeal No. 74-614. February 20, 1975. Greene Durr, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. George Gottlieb, Michael I. Rackman, Gottlieb, Rackman, Reisman Kirsch, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, LANE and MILLER, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Williams appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 181 USPQ 409 (1974), denying his motion
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 349,115 times 932 Legal Analyses
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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,364 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,375 times 321 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

Fumeroism, LLC v. John Beltran

14 Cited authorities

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"

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

Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times

Recognizing that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not have issue preclusive effect

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

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

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

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

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

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"