Sky International AG v. Sky Cinemas LLC

8 Cited authorities

Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.
899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 88 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
Crash Dummy v. Mattel
601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 28 times 3 Legal Analyses
Explaining that owner's "enter[ing] into discussions" with third party about selling products bearing the mark could support an intent to resume use, even where no agreement resulted
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
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
Rivard v. Linville
133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 23 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon
Federated Foods v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 16 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,036 times 99 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
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"

Sky International AG v. Sky Cinemas LLC

8 Cited authorities

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

Explaining that owner's "enter[ing] into discussions" with third party about selling products bearing the mark could support an intent to resume use, even where no agreement resulted

Holding that the Board erred in giving little weight to evidence of registered third-party marks in actual use

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

Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

Stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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"