§

Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. Nema Food Distribution Inc.

92070059 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2021)
Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. Nema Food Distribution Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister

    863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 554 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding even “ ‘gross negligence’ does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive”

  2. Symantec v. Computer Assoc

    522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 223 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of discussions between named inventor and putative co-inventor concerning subject matter of claimed invention was insufficient to establish co-inventorship

  3. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 175 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  4. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 88 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

  5. Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France

    245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge

  6. Meineke Discount Muffler v. Jaynes

    999 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that franchisee was not DTPA consumer because DTPA claim was based on misrepresentations about franchisor's intangible trademarks "and not any equipment or services provided by Meineke"

  7. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  8. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  9. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  10. 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

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,911 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 926 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services