Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Friedrich Winkelmann

8 Cited authorities

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.”
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.
945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 25 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors
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
Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.
823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 24 times
Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”
Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.
961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 12 times
Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 340,211 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1126 - International conventions
15 U.S.C. § 1126 Cited 185 times 29 Legal Analyses
Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Friedrich Winkelmann

8 Cited authorities

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Holding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors

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

Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”

Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

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

Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"