§

Intentional Media, LLC v. Kim Carpenter Consulting, LLC

91245787 (T.T.A.B. May. 21, 2021)
Intentional Media, LLC v. Kim Carpenter Consulting, LLC

18 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Lopez

    514 U.S. 549 (1995)   Cited 2,420 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act "exceeds the authority of Congress to ‘regulate Commerce’ " as it "neither regulates a commercial activity nor" "contains jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce" (quoting U.S. Const. Art. I § 8 cl. 3 )

  2. Gonzales v. Raich

    545 U.S. 1 (2005)   Cited 1,183 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce ... among the several States' ”

  3. Aycock Eng. v. Airflite

    560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's preparation to use the mark was insufficient to constitute use in commerce

  4. 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.”

  5. Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.

    188 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2016)   Cited 20 times
    Identifying U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,830,401 and 3,249,113

  6. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  7. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 9 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  8. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 15 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  9. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  10. Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. adidas AG

    841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Christian Faith Fellowship, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concluded that two sales totaling $38 to two out-of-state residents were de minimis and therefore not sales in commerce.

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,193 times   92 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 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,910 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,033 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  14. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 times   274 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"

  15. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,051 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark