§

Rasi Harper and Tafari Harper v. Lai Lan Enterprises LLC

91249557 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020)
Rasi Harper and Tafari Harper v. Lai Lan Enterprises LLC

17 Cited authorities

  1. Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

    349 U.S. 322 (1955)   Cited 891 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

  2. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  3. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.

    823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 30 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

  4. Hammond v. Smith

    151 A.D.3d 1896 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting plaintiff's contention that he was a partner and shared in losses because he risked losing the value of services he provided

  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. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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"

  10. Griffith Energy, Inc. v. Evans

    85 A.D.3d 1564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that existence of partnership depends upon “the conduct, intention, and relationship between” the parties, though “[n]o one factor is determinative; it is necessary to examine the ... relationship as a whole”

  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 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,986 times   135 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

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,910 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  14. Section 10 - Partnership defined

    N.Y. Partnership Law § 10   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses

    1. A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit and includes for all purposes of the laws of this state, a registered limited liability partnership. 2. But any association formed under any other statute of this state, or any statute adopted by authority, other than the authority of this state, is not a partnership under this chapter, unless such association would have been a partnership in this state prior to the adoption of this chapter; but