§

Optimal Chemical Inc. v. Srills LLC

92063200 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2019)
Optimal Chemical Inc. v. Srills LLC

38 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,266 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper

    447 U.S. 752 (1980)   Cited 2,869 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”

  3. Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal

    826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2,511 times
    Holding that upon entry of default judgment, the factual allegations of the complaint are deemed true

  4. Lambert v. Blackwell

    387 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2254(e) only applies in a challenge based on evidence outside the state trial court record

  5. Siewe v. Gonzales

    480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 808 times
    Holding that we defer to the IJ as the finder of fact "[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence"

  6. Silvestri v. General Motors Corp.

    271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 635 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding sanctions for spoliation appropriate only to curb abuses of the judicial process

  7. Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos.

    62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 422 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sanctions under the court's inherent power can "include . . . drawing adverse evidentiary inferences"

  8. Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp.

    71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 336 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where a testifying expert stated on direct examination that "he had read all of these non-testifying experts' depositions and disagreed with the experts' opinions," the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination "as to why he rejected those opinions," even though that introduced "what otherwise would have been inadmissible hearsay"

  9. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.

    892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 372 times
    Holding that fraud on the court must be demonstrated "clearly and convincingly"

  10. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 192 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party must have "intended to impair the ability" of a litigant to put on a case or defend itself to find "bad faith" (quoting Schmid , 13 F.3d at 80 )

  11. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,415 times   323 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  12. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 36,078 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  13. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,208 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  14. 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"

  15. Section 2.116 - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    37 C.F.R. § 2.116   Cited 49 times
    Making the federal rules of civil procedure generally applicable in TTAB proceedings

  16. 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"