Niche Audio, Inc. v. Munro Investment Group Pty Ltd

46 Cited authorities

Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.
469 U.S. 189 (1985) Cited 949 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 573 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank
574 U.S. 418 (2015) Cited 94 times 17 Legal Analyses
Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 108 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
Moore U.S.A. v. Standard Register Co.
229 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 142 times
Holding that a "minority" cannot be equivalent to a "majority," its very antithesis
In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) Cited 190 times 32 Legal Analyses
Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.
899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 86 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes
In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 27 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.
308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 45 times
Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)
Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 802 Cited 4,000 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,016 times 98 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
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"
Section 1057 - Certificates of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1057 Cited 1,044 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark
Section 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 147 times 19 Legal Analyses
Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"
Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings
37 C.F.R. § 2.52 Cited 29 times
Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”
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"

Niche Audio, Inc. v. Munro Investment Group Pty Ltd

46 Cited authorities

Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

Holding that a "minority" cannot be equivalent to a "majority," its very antithesis

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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 a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”

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"