§

Karen L. Willis v. Can’t Stop Productions, Inc.

No. 92051215 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2011)
Karen L. Willis v. Can’t Stop Productions, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 223,052 times   42 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"

  2. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 963 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  3. Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 705 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

  4. 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

  5. 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."

  6. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 78 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  7. Eurotech, Inc. v. Cosmos Eur. Tr. Aktiengesellschaft

    213 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Va. 2002)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that the same elements apply to a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and 1125

  8. 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.

  9. 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"

  10. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 340,287 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 96,382 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

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,550 times   341 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,818 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,048 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  15. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 934 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  16. Section 1071 - Appeal to courts

    15 U.S.C. § 1071   Cited 413 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Granting a right of appeal only to parties "dissatisfied with the decision" of the Board

  17. Section 2.116 - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    37 C.F.R. § 2.116   Cited 50 times
    Making the federal rules of civil procedure generally applicable in TTAB proceedings

  18. Section 2.145 - Appeal to court and civil action

    37 C.F.R. § 2.145   Cited 18 times
    Stating that a party has sixty-three days to appeal a decision of the TTAB