9 Cited authorities
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 72 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"
Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.
971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 26 timesStating that “a laches or estoppel defense in an opposition (or cancellation) proceeding may be based upon the Opposer's failure to object to an Applicant's registration of substantially the same mark ”
Colony Foods, Inc. v. Sagemark, Ltd.
735 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 8 timesRejecting a party's argument that the use of the word "HOBO" in several of its marks created a "family", and stating that the party failed to establish, for example, by a survey, that the term HOBO is used in the public in connection with restaurant services to identify the party exclusively.
P. A. B. Produits, Etc. v. Satinine Societa
570 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 13 timesAppeal No. 77-589. February 16, 1978. Robert J. Patch, Washington, D.C. (Young Thompson, Arlington, Va.), attorneys of record, for appellant. G. Franklin Rothwell, Washington, D.C. (Sughrue, Rothwell, Mion, Zinn Macpeak, Washington, D.C.), attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. LANE, Judge. Registrant appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)
Roger Gallet v. Janmarie, Inc.
245 F.2d 505 (C.C.P.A. 1957) Cited 16 timesPatent Appeal No. 6302. June 10, 1957. Choate, Ronalds, Reynolds Hollister, New York City (William A. Moore, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, RICH and JACKSON, retired, Judges. RICH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the Assistant Commissioner, reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in an opposition by Roger Gallet to the registration of the mark
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,447 times 91 Legal AnalysesFinding 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
Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 Cited 2,321 times 19 Legal AnalysesSetting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial
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
Section 2.124 - Depositions upon written questions
37 C.F.R. § 2.124 Cited 3 times(a) A deposition upon written questions may be taken before any person before whom depositions may be taken as provided by Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (b) (1) A party desiring to take a testimonial deposition upon written questions shall serve notice thereof upon each adverse party within ten days from the opening date of the testimony period of the party who serves the notice. The notice shall state the name and address of the witness. A copy of the notice, but not copies of