§

NetCloud, LLC v. East Coast Network Services, LLC

No. 91210559 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2015)
NetCloud, LLC v. East Coast Network Services, LLC

16 Cited authorities

  1. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  2. U.S. v. Doe

    960 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a crime of violence because typical firearm possession is not violent, even though Doe possessed his gun while waiting to ambush an enemy

  3. 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.”

  4. United States v. Ullrich

    580 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 69 times
    Holding officer was justified in frisking driver who "procrastinated before opening the glove compartment and then simultaneously reached under the seat of the car"

  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. United States v. Mendel

    746 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1984)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that prejudice would result if counsel were not given the opportunity to offer new evidence at trial following a reconsideration by the court of an earlier ruling

  7. Young v. AGB Corp.

    152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 19 times

    No. 98-1055 DECIDED: August 17, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Sharon Dinwiddie, Burke Blue, P.A., of Panama City, Florida, argued for appellant. On the brief was Edward A. Hutchinson, Jr. Pamela Ann Bresnahan, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Cory M. Amron. Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. John

  8. Grain Processing v. American Maize-Products

    108 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 18 times
    In White, this court affirmed a decision of the Board refusing to register the mark “THE ROMULANS” to the applicant (the principal member of a rock-and-roll band called “The Romulans”) for promotional connect-the-dots games.

  9. United States v. Pfeiffer

    539 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1976)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that delivery receipts were properly admitted where there was evidence as to the preparation and maintenance of such records in the "course of a regularly conducted business activity"

  10. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

    534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix "tronics" or "tronix" where the holder of the mark "Tektronix" opposed registration of the mark "Daktronics"

  11. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,953 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"

  13. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 146 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  14. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  15. 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

  16. Section 2.69 - Compliance with other laws

    37 C.F.R. § 2.69   Cited 1 times   4 Legal Analyses

    When the sale or transportation of any product for which registration of a trademark is sought is regulated under an Act of Congress, the Patent and Trademark Office may make appropriate inquiry as to compliance with such Act for the sole purpose of determining lawfulness of the commerce recited in the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.69 54 FR 37592, Sept. 11, 1989 Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations. Part 4 is placed in the separate