§

Retrobrands USA LLC v. Lands’ End Direct Merchants, Inc.

92068175 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2019)
Retrobrands USA LLC v. Lands’ End Direct Merchants, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,274 times   40 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"

  2. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. U.S.

    812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 366 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that letters indicating an intent to file a claim in the future for an unspecified amount were not claims as defined by the contract where the contractual definition of claim was substantially the same as the FAR definition: "a written demand or assertion by one of the parties seeking, as a legal right, the payment of money, adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief, arising under or relating to this contract"

  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. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  5. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 82 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  6. Metrop. Life v. Bancorp

    527 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that district court erred in denying plaintiff's Rule 56 motion for discovery and should not have treated the defendant's witnesses' declarations as truthful but "should have allowed Bancorp a reasonable opportunity for discovery concerning the accused components of the Vantage system"

  7. Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc.

    912 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times

  8. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.

    797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 17 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board erred in giving little weight to evidence of registered third-party marks in actual use

  9. Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

    900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

  10. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,364 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,954 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  13. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,027 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  14. Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.128   Cited 3 times
    Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB

  15. Section 2.129 - Oral argument; reconsideration

    37 C.F.R. § 2.129   Cited 2 times

    (a) If a party desires to have an oral argument at final hearing, the party shall request such argument by a separate notice filed not later than ten days after the due date for the filing of the last reply brief in the proceeding. Oral arguments will be heard by at least three Administrative Trademark Judges or other statutory members of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at the time specified in the notice of hearing. If any party appears at the specified time, that party will be heard. Parties