Kent G. Anderson

19 Cited authorities

Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
465 U.S. 75 (1984) Cited 3,603 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,294 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,636 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation
402 U.S. 313 (1971) Cited 2,232 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
In re Freeman
30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 98 times 4 Legal Analyses
Explaining that "a court is not without some discretion to decide whether a particular case is appropriate for application of [issue preclusion]"
In re Hotels.com
573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 23 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.
448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 20 times
Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion
Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.
424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,882 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 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"

Kent G. Anderson

19 Cited authorities

Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

Explaining that "a court is not without some discretion to decide whether a particular case is appropriate for application of [issue preclusion]"

Finding that the TTAB did not err in determining that the term was generic, citing in part concerns arising from the methodology of the applicant's consumer survey

Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"