§

Globefill Incorporated v. Calavera Tequila Company LLC

92071386 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2021)
Globefill Incorporated v. Calavera Tequila Company LLC

19 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 221,661 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. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,058 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  3. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

    731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 277 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

  4. 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."

  5. Gasser Chair Co. v. Infanti Chair Manufacturing Corp.

    60 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that the trigger for delay begins when the plaintiff's "right ripens into one entitled to protection"

  6. Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc.

    912 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 68 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

  7. 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.”

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

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 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

  9. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 9 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  10. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 15 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 337,863 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,910 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 923 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  14. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 148 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  15. Section 5.51 - Requirement for firmly affixed labels

    27 C.F.R. § 5.51   Cited 2 times

    Any label that is not an integral part of the container must be affixed to the container in such a way that it cannot be removed without thorough application of water or other solvents. 27 C.F.R. §5.51 T.D. ATF-66, 45 FR 40549, 6/13/1980, as amended by T.D. ATF-94, 46 FR 55097, 11/6/1981; T.D. ATF-242, 51 FR 39525, 10/29/1986; T.D. ATF-359, 59 FR 42160, 8/17/1994; T.D. ATF-406, 64 FR 2129, 1/13/1999; 87 FR 7579 , 3/11/2022

  16. Section 19.54 - Use of distilled spirits plant premises

    27 C.F.R. § 19.54

    (a)General. A person may not conduct any business or operation on the premises of a distilled spirits plant unless the business or operation is authorized by the notice of registration on file with TTB or authorized under § 19.55 . (b)Bonded premises. The proprietor must use the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant exclusively for distilled spirits operations. The proprietor must store packaged spirits, cases of spirits, or portable containers of spirits in a room or building on bonded premises