§

Jeffrey Simon dba M3K Enterprises v. James Holda and Beach ATM Services, LLC

CANC (T.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)
Jeffrey Simon dba M3K Enterprises v. James Holda and Beach ATM Services, LLC

14 Cited authorities

  1. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  2. Aycock Eng. v. Airflite

    560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's preparation to use the mark was insufficient to constitute use in commerce

  3. 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.”

  4. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. A & L Laboratories, Inc. v. Bou-Matic LLC

    429 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming decision of district court not to add parent company as a necessary party because parent company used the trademarks in Europe and the parties did not raise issues of foreign trademark ownership

  7. Application of Deister Concentrator Company

    289 F.2d 496 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 66 times
    Rejecting the need to consider advertising "gimmicks" designed to acquaint the public with a mark that is incapable of acquiring secondary meaning

  8. Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

    534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect

  9. In re Wella A.G

    787 F.2d 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal No. 85-2397. April 1, 1986. Bruce E. Lilling, Lilling Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y., argued, for appellant. Helen R. Wendel, Trademark Examining Atty., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, DAVIS and NIES, Circuit Judges. FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from

  10. Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.

    849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 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"

  13. Section 3.73 - Establishing right of assignee to take action

    37 C.F.R. § 3.73   Cited 12 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment. (b) In order to request or take action in a trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment

  14. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified