Independent Media Corporation (PVT.) Ltd. v. BOL Enterprise (PVT.) Ltd.

11 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 222,599 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"
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."
Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.
308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 47 times
Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)
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.
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
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"
Pilkington Bros. v. AFG Industries Inc.
581 F. Supp. 1039 (D. Del. 1984) Cited 8 times
Civ. A. No. 83-561 MMS. February 28, 1984. Charles F. Richards, Jr., Richards, Layton Finger, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff; Joel M. Freed, and Joseph R. Magnone, Burns, Doane, Swecker Mathis, Alexandria, Va., of counsel. Stephen P. Lamb, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, Wilmington, Del., for defendants; John C. Dods, James T. Newsom, and Peter E. Strand, Shook, Hardy Bacon, Kansas City, Mo., of counsel. OPINION MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, District Judge. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive
Application of Cooper
254 F.2d 611 (C.C.P.A. 1958) Cited 22 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding trademark office's refusal to register a book title as a trademark, but noting that "the rights in book titles are afforded appropriate protection under the law of unfair competition"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 339,516 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,916 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 24 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

Independent Media Corporation (PVT.) Ltd. v. BOL Enterprise (PVT.) Ltd.

11 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"

Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

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

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"

Upholding trademark office's refusal to register a book title as a trademark, but noting that "the rights in book titles are afforded appropriate protection under the law of unfair competition"

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

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"