§

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

No. 91210158 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)
Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. v. Lundy Law, LLP

15 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,274 times   40 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. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions

    134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying trademark protection on the architectural design of the building because the design was not consistently emphasized

  3. Co-Rect Products, Inc. v. Marvy! Advertising Photography, Inc.

    780 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that district court's finding that ten months was insufficient to establish secondary meaning was not clearly erroneous

  4. T. Marzetti Co. v. Roskam Baking Co.

    680 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 25 times
    Finding "Texas Toast" mark was generic because it referred to large bread product, not to producer of the bread product

  5. Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.

    695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the Board may "ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark," it "ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of the goods or services at issue"

  6. Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products

    866 F.2d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 45 times
    Finding that as a preliminary to comparing the marks in their entireties it is not improper to give less weight to the generic "pecan" part of the marks in finding no likely confusion in: PECAN SANDIES pecan cookies vs. PECAN SHORTEES pecan cookies

  7. In re Pennington Seed, Inc.

    466 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) “does not have the force and effect of law”

  8. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 23 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. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows v. Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, Inc.

    855 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 24 times
    Finding no direct conflict between the Lanham Act and a state anti-dilution act

  10. Sparknet Communications v. Bonneville International

    386 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Ill. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Conducting a trial on the papers in a trademark infringement case

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,364 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 2.127 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 2.127   Cited 8 times

    (a) Every motion must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126 . It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved