Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC (assignee of American Custom Golfcars, Inc. aka ACG, Inc.)

19 Cited authorities

Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 15 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.
811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 42 times
Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration
A & L Laboratories, Inc. v. Bou-Matic LLC
429 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2005) Cited 13 times
Affirming decision of district court not to add parent company as a necessary party because parent company used the trademarks in Europe and the parties did not raise issues of foreign trademark ownership
Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.
238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times
Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."
West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants
31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 21 times
Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes
Anthony's Pizza Holding Co. v. Anthony's Pizza & Pasta International, Inc.
415 F. App'x 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 2 times
No. 2010-1191. November 18, 2010. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Stewart J. Bellus, Collard Roe, P.C., of Roslyn, NY, for appellant. Garrett M. Tuttle, Ballard Spahr LLP, of Denver, CO, for appellee. With him on the brief was Jeffrey J. Cowman. Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and MOORE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") granted the petition of Anthony's Pizza Pasta International, Inc. ("APPI")
Otto Roth Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.
640 F.2d 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Cited 20 times
Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 95,193 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
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 13,058 times 85 Legal Analyses
Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
Section 101 - Definitions
17 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 6,607 times 181 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the United States' adherence to provisions of the Berne Convention of 1886
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,910 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,646 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,607 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"
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"
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 2.127 - Motions
37 C.F.R. § 2.127 Cited 8 times
(a) Every motion must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126 . It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved
Section 2.126 - Form of submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
37 C.F.R. § 2.126 Cited 1 times
(a) Submissions must be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board via ESTTA. (1) Text in an electronic submission must be filed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. (2) Exhibits pertaining to an electronic submission must be made electronically as an attachment to the submission and must be clear and legible. (b) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, submissions may be filed in paper form. All submissions in paper

Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC (assignee of American Custom Golfcars, Inc. aka ACG, Inc.)

19 Cited authorities

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

Affirming decision of district court not to add parent company as a necessary party because parent company used the trademarks in Europe and the parties did not raise issues of foreign trademark ownership

Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."

Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

Recognizing importance of "free use of the language" in commercial speech context

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

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Recognizing the United States' adherence to provisions of the Berne Convention of 1886

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

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"

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"