12 Cited authorities
In re Bose Corp.
580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 169 times 13 Legal AnalysesHolding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO
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.”
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 14 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"
Application of Deister Concentrator Company
289 F.2d 496 (C.C.P.A. 1961) Cited 66 timesRejecting the need to consider advertising "gimmicks" designed to acquaint the public with a mark that is incapable of acquiring secondary meaning
Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 25 timesHolding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect
Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.
849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 4 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.
P. A. B. Produits, Etc. v. Satinine Societa
570 F.2d 328 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 13 timesAppeal 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)
W.D. Byron Sons v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co.
377 F.2d 1001 (C.C.P.A. 1967) Cited 18 timesPatent Appeal No. 7806. May 25, 1967. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Sidney A. Diamond, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Charles F. Meroni, Charles F. Meroni, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal by opposer-petitioner Byron from the
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 93,233 times 91 Legal AnalysesFinding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,843 times 125 Legal AnalysesRequiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities
37 C.F.R. § 2.71 Cited 12 times 3 Legal AnalysesThe applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified