Lakeside Equipment Corporation v. Evoqua Water Technologies LLC

18 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,686 times 41 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"
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,290 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
532 U.S. 23 (2001) Cited 599 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 573 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 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"
Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.
278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 59 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"
Jay Franco Sons, Inc. v. Franek
615 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 34 times
Holding that a round beach towel's design was functional
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.”
In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.
675 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 2011–1111. 2012-04-12 In re BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant. Christina J. Hieber, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellee. With her on the brief was Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor. Of counsel was Amy Nelson. CLEVENGER 4,741,446, 4,991,104, 6,602,206. Cited. Richard Z. Lehv, Fross, Zelnivk, Lehrman & Zissu, of New York, NY, argued for the appellant
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 14 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 336,252 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 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"

Lakeside Equipment Corporation v. Evoqua Water Technologies LLC

18 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

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"

Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

Holding that a round beach towel's design was functional

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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"