§

Macmillan, Inc. v. Dolores M. Winner

No. 91104286 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 1999)
Macmillan, Inc. v. Dolores M. Winner

9 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,608 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"

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  4. J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  5. Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc.

    739 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that the nonmovant "must set out, usually in an affidavit by one with knowledge of specific facts, what specific evidence could be offered at trial."

  6. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  7. Planters Nut Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut

    305 F.2d 916 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6812. August 15, 1962. Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Boynton P. Livingston, Washington, D.C. (G. Cabell Busick, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Robert K. Youtie, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title

  8. Polaroid Corporation v. Richard Mfg. Co.

    341 F.2d 150 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7248. February 11, 1965. Donald L. Brown, Cambridge, Mass., for appellant. Munson H. Lane, Conder C. Henry, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Polaroid Corporation appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 137 USPQ 488, dismissing its opposition to application of Richard Manufacturing Company for registration of the mark "POLY-VUE" for filmstrip or slidefilm projectors.

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,116 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit