§

Imasco Enterprises Inc. v. Genesis Integrated Systems, Inc.

No. 92022092 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 1998)
Imasco Enterprises Inc. v. Genesis Integrated Systems, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 237,216 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. 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"

  3. Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp.

    624 F.2d 366 (1st Cir. 1980)   Cited 150 times
    Finding three and half years combined with striking differences between containers makes lack of actual confusion significant

  4. 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.

  5. 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"

  6. CBS Inc. v. Morrow

    708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In CBS, the court gave greater weight to the verbal portion of the subject mark because the evidence showed that “approximately 15% [of the product's] total sales are by mail order, and [the product's] 17–page catalog (of record) displays” the mark a number of times without its design elements.

  7. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  8. Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings

    576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 11 times
    Finding no error in the citation to third-party registrations

  9. Charles of Ritz v. Elizabeth Arden Sales

    161 F.2d 234 (C.C.P.A. 1947)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5282. April 22, 1947. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents, T.M. Cancellation No. 4322. Proceeding by Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation against Charles of the Ritz, Inc., for cancellation of a registered trade-mark. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patent's affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences sustaining the petition, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Mock Blum, of New York City (Asher Blum, of New York City, and Charles R. Allen, of Washington, D.C., of counsel)

  10. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,185 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,367 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

  12. Section 1058 - Duration, affidavits and fees

    15 U.S.C. § 1058   Cited 240 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Providing a ten-year duration for registered marks

  13. Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings

    15 U.S.C. § 1069   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"