Hearst Communica-tions, Inc. v. TVNess, LLC

8 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,828 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"
American Automobile Ass'n v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C.
930 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 248 times
Holding the district court erred in excluding defendant's responses to plaintiff's requests for admissions where plaintiff "included the admissions in its pretrial order as `undisputed issues of fact,' introduced the admissions into evidence at trial and relied on them in support of its case"
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 times
No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
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
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,613 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 Cited 9,190 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"
Rule 36 - Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Cited 6,119 times 12 Legal Analyses
Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"
Section 2.120 - Discovery
37 C.F.R. § 2.120 Cited 22 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

Hearst Communica-tions, Inc. v. TVNess, LLC

8 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"

Holding the district court erred in excluding defendant's responses to plaintiff's requests for admissions where plaintiff "included the admissions in its pretrial order as `undisputed issues of fact,' introduced the admissions into evidence at trial and relied on them in support of its case"

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

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

Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"

Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"