Panda Security, S.L. v. Panda Core Technology, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

C C Metal Prod. Corp. v. Defiance Button Machine Co.
474 U.S. 844 (1985) Cited 104 times
Holding information loses the protection of trade secret law if owner fails to take reasonable precautions
United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co.
248 U.S. 90 (1918) Cited 547 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"
Defiance Button Mach. v. C C Metal Products
759 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 141 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's customer lists lost their character as trade secrets because the company failed, upon selling most of its tangible assets, to take adequate measures to ensure the secrecy of the lists
Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty
264 U.S. 359 (1924) Cited 239 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trademark "only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his"
American Foundries v. Robertson
269 U.S. 372 (1926) Cited 223 times
Addressing trademarks
Dial-A-Mattress v. Mattress Madness
841 F. Supp. 1339 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) Cited 72 times
Holding that the assignment of the trade name "Dial-A-Mattress" to a corporation already using that name was not invalid as an assignment in gross; assignee had already built up substantial goodwill in the name before the assignment and the assignor had no other assets except its intellectual property at the time of the assignment
Dial-A-Mattress v. Mattress Madness
847 F. Supp. 18 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) Cited 11 times
In Dial-A-Mattress, the court held that it could pierce the corporate veil to hold the president of a corporation personally liable for his corporation's contract where he received payment under the contract. Dial-A-Mattress, Inc., 847 F.Supp. at 20.
P. A. B. Produits, Etc. v. Satinine Societa
570 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 13 times
Appeal No. 77-589. February 16, 1978. Robert J. Patch, Washington, D.C. (Young Thompson, Arlington, Va.), attorneys of record, for appellant. G. Franklin Rothwell, Washington, D.C. (Sughrue, Rothwell, Mion, Zinn Macpeak, Washington, D.C.), attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. LANE, Judge. Registrant appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,806 times 124 Legal Analyses
Requiring 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 Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Rule 902 - Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
Fed. R. Evid. 902 Cited 2,136 times 35 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[p]rinted material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating
Section 1060 - Assignment
15 U.S.C. § 1060 Cited 188 times 13 Legal Analyses
Requiring assignments of federal trademark registrations to be "by instruments in writing"
Section 1055 - Use by related companies affecting validity and registration
15 U.S.C. § 1055 Cited 149 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that use by related company inures to benefit of registrant
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"

Panda Security, S.L. v. Panda Core Technology, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Holding information loses the protection of trade secret law if owner fails to take reasonable precautions

Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"

Holding that plaintiff's customer lists lost their character as trade secrets because the company failed, upon selling most of its tangible assets, to take adequate measures to ensure the secrecy of the lists

Holding that a trademark "only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his"

Addressing trademarks

In Dial-A-Mattress, the court held that it could pierce the corporate veil to hold the president of a corporation personally liable for his corporation's contract where he received payment under the contract. Dial-A-Mattress, Inc., 847 F.Supp. at 20.

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

Stating that "[p]rinted material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating

Requiring assignments of federal trademark registrations to be "by instruments in writing"

Providing that use by related company inures to benefit of registrant

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"