§

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 794 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 1,290 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 111 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 41 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 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding party must prove design acquired secondary meaning before first infringement

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

    192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 52 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 23 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. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 14 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  10. 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"

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

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,589 times   77 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 5,919 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Governing testimony of lay witnesses

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 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 1,600 times   274 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 945 times   19 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 13 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