13 Cited authorities
United States v. Hyde
448 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1971) Cited 138 timesRelying on fair inferences from the record in a Hobbs Act extortion case
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.
293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 34 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 13 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 57 timesHolding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.
859 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 7 times 1 Legal AnalysesUpholding decision of USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that defendant, rather than plaintiff, owned disputed trademark, even though plaintiff had registered the trademark and defendant had not, because defendant was first to use trademark in commerce
In re Wella A.G
787 F.2d 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 9 timesAppeal No. 85-2397. April 1, 1986. Bruce E. Lilling, Lilling Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y., argued, for appellant. Helen R. Wendel, Trademark Examining Atty., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, DAVIS and NIES, Circuit Judges. FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from
Sanyo Watch Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co.
691 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1982) Cited 4 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the opposer in a proceeding to test likelihood of confusion "bears the burden of proof which encompasses not only the ultimate burden of persuasion, but also the obligation of going forward with sufficient proof of the material allegations of the Notice of Opposition"
King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen
496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,729 times 85 Legal AnalysesRecognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,806 times 124 Legal AnalysesRequiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 2,954 times 96 Legal AnalysesGranting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1055 - Use by related companies affecting validity and registration
15 U.S.C. § 1055 Cited 149 times 3 Legal AnalysesProviding that use by related company inures to benefit of registrant