ProMark Brands Inc. and H.J. Heinz Company v. GFA Brands, Inc.

34 Cited authorities

  1. Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A

    429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that "this court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings under the law of the regional circuit"
  2. Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co.

    628 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1980)   Cited 285 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to make formal findings of fact may be excusable error where the facts are uncontroverted
  3. Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc.

    531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 307 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
  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
  5. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 188 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
  6. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
  7. Paco Sport, Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Parfums

    86 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 60 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding fact that employees giving anectodal evidence of actual confusion had "professional association" with plaintiff to render their evidence unpersuasive
  8. Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP

    746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 24 times
    Reviewing the weight given to the similarity-of-the-marks factor for legal error
  9. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"
  10. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 96,182 times   663 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,402 times   323 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
  13. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,878 times   262 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard
  14. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,265 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
  15. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,371 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
  16. 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
  17. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"
  18. Section 2.52 - Types of drawings and format for drawings

    37 C.F.R. § 2.52   Cited 29 times
    Providing rules for applicants “who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”
  19. 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"
  20. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"
  21. Section 2.106 - Answer

    37 C.F.R. § 2.106   Cited 12 times
    Defining compulsory counterclaim as "defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the opposition"
  22. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods