§

GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Dorfman-Pacific Co. Dorfman-Pacific Co. v. GMA Accessories, Inc.

No. 91196926 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2013)
GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Dorfman-Pacific Co. Dorfman-Pacific Co. v. GMA Accessories, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp.

    287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 1,221 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing factors, including actual confusion, to be considered in assessing whether the Lanham Act’s "likelihood of confusion" test for infringement is met

  3. 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

  4. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  5. 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

  6. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

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

  7. Rosso and Mastracco, Inc. v. Giant Food Inc.

    720 F.2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 33 times

    Appeal No. 83-812. Opposition Nos. 60949-60952. November 2, 1983. Robert G. McMorrow, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Cynthia Clarke Dale, Washington, D.C. Alan S. Cooper, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was William W. Beckett, Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before RICH, DAVIS and BALDWIN, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the December

  8. Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp.

    558 F.2d 1019 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 77-503. July 14, 1977. Frank P. Presta, Jacobi, Lilling Siegel, Arlington, Va., for the Wella Corp. Gary E. Lande, Poms, Smith, Lande Glenny, Los Angeles, Cal., for California Concept Corp. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. MILLER Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board"), 192 USPQ 158 (1976), dismissing appellant's opposition No. 55,727, filed June 6, 1974, against application No. 454,056, filed April 20, 1973, for

  9. DeCosta v. Columbia Broadcasting System

    498 F.2d 1383 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9211. June 13, 1974. Rehearing Denied August 22, 1974. Leonard Michaelson, Salter Michaelson, Providence, R.I., attorney of record, for appellant. Joseph D. Garon, New York City, attorney of record, for appellee; Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue Raymond, New York City, of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and

  10. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. v. Midland Int'l

    421 F.2d 754 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 4 times
    Giving preclusive effect to likelihood of confusion analysis in prior infringement proceedings

  11. 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

  12. 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"

  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

  14. 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"