Raygun Limited v. Planet 9 Studios, Inc. and SapientX Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 243,535 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,599 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
  3. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
  4. 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.”
  5. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
  6. Ceats, Inc. v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.

    526 F. App'x 966 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 7 times

    2012-1614 04-26-2013 CEATS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., HORIZON AIR INDUSTRIES, INC., DELTA AIR LINES, INC., JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, UNITED AIRLINES, INC., VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., US AIRWAYS, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, TICKETSNOW.COM, INC., AND LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. MICHAEL S. NADEL, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. MARK A

  7. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
  8. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion
  9. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"
  10. Yanopoulos v. Department of Navy

    796 F.2d 468 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    Appeal No. 85-2592. July 23, 1986. Jeffrey A. Vogelman, of Ballenger Vogelman, Alexandria, Va., argued, for petitioner. Jonathan S. Baker, of the Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for respondent. On brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Robert A. Reutershan, Asst. Director, and Elaine J. Guth, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. Of counsel was Dale Birdoff, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Dept. of the Navy. Appeal from

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,516 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 36 - Requests for Admission

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 36   Cited 6,407 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"
  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,916 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark