Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

SNC Industria de Cosmetics Ltda v. Jalmar Araujo

92072680 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2021)
SNC Industria de Cosmetics Ltda v. Jalmar Araujo

21 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 223,243 times   42 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. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,117 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  3. Adickes v. Kress Co.

    398 U.S. 144 (1970)   Cited 25,631 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983

  4. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  5. 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."

  6. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 194 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  7. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  8. Akers v. Beal Bank

    845 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 29 times
    Explaining that “the nonmoving party ... may not rely solely on allegations or conclusory statements. Rather, the nonmoving party must present specific facts that would enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor”

  9. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 12 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

  10. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 340,613 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 934 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  13. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 149 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"