§

Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. v. Lundy Law, LLP

No. 91210158 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018)
Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. v. Lundy Law, LLP

13 Cited authorities

  1. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 15 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  2. 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"

  3. In re Nett Designs, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE "do not conclusively rebut the Board's finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark"

  4. Anthony's Pizza Holding Co. v. Anthony's Pizza & Pasta International, Inc.

    415 F. App'x 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    No. 2010-1191. November 18, 2010. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Stewart J. Bellus, Collard Roe, P.C., of Roslyn, NY, for appellant. Garrett M. Tuttle, Ballard Spahr LLP, of Denver, CO, for appellee. With him on the brief was Jeffrey J. Cowman. Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and MOORE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") granted the petition of Anthony's Pizza Pasta International, Inc. ("APPI")

  5. Application of Singer Manufacturing Company

    255 F.2d 939 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6375. June 18, 1958. Chester A. Williams, Jr., Cranford, N.J. (Robert B. Harmon, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before JOHNSON, C.J., and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, and RICH, JJ. O'CONNELL, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, 112 USPQ 268, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Trademarks and refusing registration of appellant's mark for sewing machines

  6. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,051 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  7. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,907 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,032 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"

  10. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  11. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 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"

  12. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination

  13. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods