§

Nutrition Care Systems, Inc. v. NCS HealthCare, Inc.

No. 94001169 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2002)
Nutrition Care Systems, Inc. v. NCS HealthCare, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 223,052 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 193 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  3. Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc.

    739 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that the nonmovant "must set out, usually in an affidavit by one with knowledge of specific facts, what specific evidence could be offered at trial."

  4. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  5. In re Beatrice Foods Co.

    429 F.2d 466 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 49 times
    In Beatrice Foods, our predecessor court held that "[o]nce there has been a determination that both parties are entitled to a federal registration, the extent to which those registrations are to be restricted territorially must... be governed by the statutory standard of likelihood of confusion."

  6. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  7. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  8. Gray v. Daffy Dan's Bargaintown

    823 F.2d 522 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Referencing in dictum the general principle that a registrant needed to show "lawful use in commerce"

  9. Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

    544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

  10. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 340,287 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  11. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,402 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication