§

PLM Operations, LLC v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V.

91245908 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2019)
PLM Operations, LLC v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,773 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 269,497 times   367 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Blue v. U.S. Dept. of Army

    914 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1990)   Cited 170 times
    Holding that although the fee award was assessed against plaintiffs in a complex civil rights suit, it was proper because the district court's order imposing fees meticulously describes each instance of perjury and bad faith

  4. Vest v. Ziaee

    499 U.S. 959 (1991)   Cited 36 times
    Finding abuse-of-discretion review proper where sanctions imposed pursuant to four theories

  5. 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.”

  6. Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.

    188 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2016)   Cited 20 times
    Identifying U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,830,401 and 3,249,113

  7. Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. U.S.

    594 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that plaintiffs claiming discrimination are “required to allege facts sufficient to establish a governmental purpose to discriminate”

  8. Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A.

    247 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that a footnote without a structured argument did not raise a defense

  9. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  10. In re Nantucket, Inc.

    677 F.2d 95 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 28 times
    Describing this legislative history

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 349,115 times   932 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  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 55 - Default; Default Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 55   Cited 33,307 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Adopting similar language for acquiring default judgment against the United States

  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 2.127 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 2.127   Cited 8 times

    (a) Every motion must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126 . It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved

  16. Section 2.195 - Filing date of trademark correspondence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.195   2 Legal Analyses

    The filing date of trademark correspondence is determined as follows: (a)Electronic submissions. The filing date of an electronic submission is the date the Office receives the submission, based on Eastern Time, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. (b)Paper correspondence. The filing date of a submission submitted on paper is the date the Office receives the submission, except as follows: (1)Priority Mail Express®. The filing date