Portland Mavericks Baseball Club, Inc. v. The National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. Baseball Leagues, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France
245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 51 times
Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge
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.”
Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.
293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 35 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE
Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC
965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement
Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC
978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 9 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 15 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding 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 58 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC
981 F.3d 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 1 times 1 Legal Analyses
2019-1567 12-04-2020 AUSTRALIAN THERAPEUTIC SUPPLIES PTY. LTD., Appellant v. NAKED TM, LLC, Appellee PER CURIAM. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC ORDER Per Curiam. Appellee Naked TM, LLC filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Appellant Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. A motion for leave to file an amicus brief was filed by Lee Thomason and granted by the court. The petition for rehearing, response, and amicus brief were first
Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.
238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times
Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,904 times 126 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 3,028 times 99 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,605 times 274 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"

Portland Mavericks Baseball Club, Inc. v. The National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. Baseball Leagues, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Finding that product marks, ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE, were famous in addition to their house mark, BOSE

Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."

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

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"