§

Precision, Inc. v. Nercon Eng. & Mfg., Inc.

91247404 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2021)
Precision, Inc. v. Nercon Eng. & Mfg., Inc.

43 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,058 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 957 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

  3. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 576 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

  4. Ever-Ready v. Union Carbide Corp.

    429 U.S. 830 (1976)   Cited 243 times
    Approving what is now known as the "Eveready " test

  5. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.

    722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 248 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the similarity of the [consumer's] search term and [the plaintiff's] mark is of minor relevance"

  6. Indianapolis Colts v. Metro. Baltimore Football

    34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 234 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that infringement of Colts trademark was expressly aimed at Indiana where trademark holder and bulk of confused fans were located

  7. Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc.

    531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 308 times
    Holding that the defendants' suddenly changing the name of one of its own products to include the plaintiff's mark created confusion and defeated a laches defense even after the defendants had been distributing the plaintiff's products that were labeled with that mark for nineteen years

  8. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  9. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co.

    746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1984)   Cited 225 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a survey to be "so badly flawed that it cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of a question of fact"

  10. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,193 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding 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

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,831 times   287 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  13. Section 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 185 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

  14. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 148 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"