§

Marc Fisher LLC v. Bottega Veneta

91214253 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2019)
Marc Fisher LLC v. Bottega Veneta

24 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    529 U.S. 205 (2000)   Cited 776 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

  2. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,261 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  3. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

    805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 108 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a declaration appended to a reply brief "fairly respond[ed] only to arguments made in ... [the patent owner]'s response," as required by § 42.23(b), and that the patent owner had "a meaningful opportunity to respond," as required by the APA

  4. Perry v. Cable News Network, Inc.

    854 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2017)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that a violation of Video Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits wrongful disclosure by a video tape service provider of video tape rental or sale records, would be a concrete injury since it was analogous to the well-established torts of invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion

  5. Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    907 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 33 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Advising that "both Converse's use and the use by its competitors" must be considered

  6. L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.

    192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

  7. Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum

    586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

  8. In re Chippendales USA, Inc.

    622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether the trade dress was "a common basic shape or design" was "inapplicable" because "there has been no showing that the [trade dress] is common generally"

  9. 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"

  10. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,208 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 701   Cited 5,766 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   272 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"

  15. Section 1126 - Acceptance of plan

    11 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 930 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Providing that impaired claim and interest holders are entitled to vote on plan approval

  16. 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"

  17. Section 2.41 - Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f)

    37 C.F.R. § 2.41   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)For a trademark or service mark - (1)Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required. (2)Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate