Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Nutrimost LLC

20 Cited authorities

Bohler-Uddeholm America, Inc. v. Ellwood Group
247 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 637 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Pennsylvania law allows use of extrinsic evidence to establish a latent ambiguity
Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.
557 Pa. 595 (Pa. 1999) Cited 616 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court should not "distort the meaning of the language or resort to a strained contrivance in order to find an ambiguity"
Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp.
513 Pa. 192 (Pa. 1986) Cited 486 times
In Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., 513 Pa. 192, 519 A.2d 385 (1986), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that "[a] contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions and capable of being understood in more than one sense."
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit
619 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1980) Cited 576 times
Finding ambiguity in pension plan term "children"
Steuart v. McChesney
498 Pa. 45 (Pa. 1982) Cited 454 times
Holding that when words in written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the agreement
Krizovensky v. Krizovensky
425 Pa. Super. 204 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) Cited 140 times
Stating that "[c]lear contractual terms that are capable of one reasonable interpretation must be given effect without reference to matters outside the contract"
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 72 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Samuel Rappaport Family Partnership v. Meridian Bank
441 Pa. Super. 194 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) Cited 78 times
Defining patent ambiguity as that which "appears on the face of the contract and is a result of defective or obscure language" and latent ambiguity as that which "arises from collateral facts which make the meaning of the contract uncertain" despite facially clear language in the contract
McGuire v. Schneider, Inc.
368 Pa. Super. 344 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) Cited 83 times
Holding under UWOA, statement of intent to be legally bound removes lack of consideration as ground for avoiding contract
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.”
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"
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"

Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Nutrimost LLC

20 Cited authorities

Holding that Pennsylvania law allows use of extrinsic evidence to establish a latent ambiguity

Holding that a court should not "distort the meaning of the language or resort to a strained contrivance in order to find an ambiguity"

In Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., 513 Pa. 192, 519 A.2d 385 (1986), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that "[a] contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions and capable of being understood in more than one sense."

Finding ambiguity in pension plan term "children"

Holding that when words in written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the agreement

Stating that "[c]lear contractual terms that are capable of one reasonable interpretation must be given effect without reference to matters outside the contract"

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Defining patent ambiguity as that which "appears on the face of the contract and is a result of defective or obscure language" and latent ambiguity as that which "arises from collateral facts which make the meaning of the contract uncertain" despite facially clear language in the contract

Holding under UWOA, statement of intent to be legally bound removes lack of consideration as ground for avoiding contract

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

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"