§

Leonid Nahshin v. Product Source International, LLC

No. 92051140 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2013)
Leonid Nahshin v. Product Source International, LLC

9 Cited authorities

  1. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 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"

  2. Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.

    971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 27 times
    Stating 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 ”

  3. Colony Foods, Inc. v. Sagemark, Ltd.

    735 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting 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.

  4. P. A. B. Produits, Etc. v. Satinine Societa

    570 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 13 times

    Appeal 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)

  5. Roger Gallet v. Janmarie, Inc.

    245 F.2d 505 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the foreign manufacturer owned the United States mark over a United States distributor because "a mere importer and distributor acquires no rights in the marks used on the imported goods by the foreign exporter in the absence of an assignment"

  6. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,878 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding 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

  7. Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 32   Cited 2,402 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial

  8. 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

  9. 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