§

M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd. and Global Technology & Trade Marks Limited

91231033 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2019)
M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd. and Global Technology & Trade Marks Limited

18 Cited authorities

  1. 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.”

  2. Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

    854 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention permits recovery for emotional distress flowing from a physical injury

  3. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  4. 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

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

  7. Application of Thunderbird Products Corp.

    406 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal Nos. 8084, 8085. March 6, 1969. Eugene F. Buell, Buell, Blenko Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument January 9, 1969 by Mr. Buell and Mr. Nakamura] Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. These two appeals from decisions

  8. McCormick Company v. Summers

    354 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 9 times
    In McCormick this court said "registrability of a mark must be determined on the basis of facts as they exist at the time when the issue of registrability is under consideration" and it appears to us consistent with McCormick and DeWalt as well as sound in principle to decide in the present appeal that the time when the issue of registrability is under consideration extends at least to the time the application is acted on in the Patent Office.

  9. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,447 times   91 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

  10. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 10,127 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of declarations instead

  11. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,371 times   305 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements

  12. 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

  13. 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"

  14. Section 25 - Declaration in lieu of oath

    35 U.S.C. § 25   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form as the Director may prescribe, such declaration to be in lieu of the oath otherwise required. (b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment,

  15. 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"

  16. 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

  17. Section 2.20 - Declarations in lieu of oaths

    37 C.F.R. § 2.20   Cited 7 times   7 Legal Analyses

    Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746 , or the following declaration language, may be used: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 , and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and

  18. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods