§

Judith Mendez v. Dita, Inc.

No. 91170265 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2012)
Judith Mendez v. Dita, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.

    811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 42 times
    Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

  3. Univ. Oil Prod. v. Rexall Drug Chemical

    463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that the parent corporation had a "real interest" in the proceeding and thus "standing to institute and maintain it"

  4. Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products

    341 F.2d 127 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7281. February 11, 1965. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, New York City (Arnold Sprung, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Robert C. Williams, D.D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Powermatics appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarding priority to Globe, senior party, in a trademark interference between Globe's Registration No. 704,179 for "PANELUME"

  5. Elder Mfg. Co. v. International Shoe Co.

    194 F.2d 114 (C.C.P.A. 1952)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5834. January 29, 1952. Alfred W. Petchaft, St. Louis, Mo. (Lloyd W. Patch, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Lawrence C. Kingsland, Edmund C. Rogers, and Estill E. Ezell, all of St. Louis, Mo. (Kingsland, Rogers Ezell, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel), for appellee. Before JACKSON, Acting Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON and WORLEY, Judges. JOHNSON, Judge. This is an appeal in a trade-mark opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking

  6. B.R. Baker Co. v. Lebow Bros

    150 F.2d 580 (C.C.P.A. 1945)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5030. June 25, 1945. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents of United States Patent Office, Interference No. 3,358. Application filed in 1940 by the B.R. Baker Company for registration of a trade-mark. An interference was declared with two trade-marks registered by Lebow Brothers on applications filed in 1932 and later. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents reversing the decision of the Examiner, who had held that the B.R. Baker Company was the first user and owner of