§

John G. Marino v. Laguna Lakes Community Association, Inc.

No. 91204941 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)
John G. Marino v. Laguna Lakes Community Association, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Limited

    155 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 247 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must consider application of digits in light of comparative advertising claim

  2. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 176 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  3. Horseshoe Bay Resort Sales Co. v. Lake Lyndon B. Johnson Improvement Corp.

    53 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the continued use of a trademarked domain name gave "rise to a separate cause of action each day it [was] repeated"

  4. Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd.

    942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D. Tex. 1996)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that existence of multiple users of a mark is relevant only to strength or weakness of mark

  5. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 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"

  6. 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"

  7. In re Newbridge Cutlery Co.

    776 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1535. 01-15-2015 In re THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY (trading as Newbridge Silverware). Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Christina J. Hieber and Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors. LINN, Circuit Judge. Philip Raible, Rayner Rowe LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United

  8. Tortoise Island Homeowners Ass'n v. Tortoise Island Realty, Inc.

    790 So. 2d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 6 times

    Case No. 5D00-334 Opinion filed July 13, 2001 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Charles M. Holcomb, Judge. Allan P. Whitehead of Frese, Nash Hansen, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellant. Pamela Huddleston and Elise A. Singer of Huddleston Palumbo, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND INCORPORATED MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION SHARP, W., J. We deny appellee's motion for rehearing and incorporated motion for rehearing en banc. We grant appellee's

  9. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  10. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,524 times   95 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

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,923 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 times   275 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"

  13. 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"