§

Geoffrey, LLC v. Hair Are Us, Inc.

No. 91221951 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)
Geoffrey, LLC v. Hair Are Us, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,235 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"

  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,251 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  3. Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

    349 U.S. 322 (1955)   Cited 884 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

  4. Morris v. Jones

    329 U.S. 545 (1947)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that a default judgment constitutes a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes

  5. Riehle v. Margolies

    279 U.S. 218 (1929)   Cited 259 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

  6. 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

  7. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  8. 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"

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,300 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,428 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  13. 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