§

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Cándido Viñuales Taboada

91232597 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020)
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Cándido Viñuales Taboada

28 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 268,736 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 281,664 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Johnson v. City of Shelby

    574 U.S. 10 (2014)   Cited 3,222 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs must plead facts, not theories

  4. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,293 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  5. Hatmaker V. Mem'l Med. Ctr.

    619 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 338 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff need not plead legal theories in complaint

  6. Albert v. Carovano

    851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 407 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff's selective enforcement claim must "specify instances" in which they have been treated differently from "others similarly situated"

  7. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 75 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. 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.”

  9. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.

    906 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2017-1959, 2017-2009 09-21-2018 REAL FOODS PTY LTD., Appellant v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Cross-Appellant Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Stephanie Spangler ; Kelly Watkins, Allentown, PA. William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber LLP, Austin, TX, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by Tyson David Smith, David Armendariz. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Jeanne M. Hamburg, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, New York, NY, argued

  10. 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

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,969 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,402 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

  13. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,837 times   329 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  14. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,911 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  15. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,608 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  16. Section 1141 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1141   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses

    In this subchapter: (1) Basic application The term "basic application" means the application for the registration of a mark that has been filed with an Office of a Contracting Party and that constitutes the basis for an application for the international registration of that mark. (2) Basic registration The term "basic registration" means the registration of a mark that has been granted by an Office of a Contracting Party and that constitutes the basis for an application for the international registration

  17. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"

  18. Section 1141h - Examination of and opposition to request for extension of protection; notification of refusal

    15 U.S.C. § 1141h   Cited 6 times

    (a) Examination and opposition (1) A request for extension of protection described in section 1141f(a) of this title shall be examined as an application for registration on the Principal Register under this chapter, and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to extension of protection under this subchapter, the Director shall cause the mark to be published in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection

  19. Section 2.34 - Bases for filing a trademark or service mark application

    37 C.F.R. § 2.34   Cited 14 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application for a trademark or service mark must include one or more of the following five filing bases: (1)Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are: (i) The applicant's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; (ii) The date

  20. Section 2.33 - Verified statement for a trademark or service mark

    37 C.F.R. § 2.33   Cited 13 times
    Setting forth the oath enshrining the statutory requirements

  21. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination

  22. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods

  23. Section 2.104 - Contents of opposition

    37 C.F.R. § 2.104   Cited 2 times

    (a) The opposition must set forth a short and plain statement showing why the opposer believes he, she or it would be damaged by the registration of the opposed mark and state the grounds for opposition. ESTTA requires the opposer to select relevant grounds for opposition. The required accompanying statement supports and explains the grounds. (b) Oppositions to different applications owned by the same party may be joined in a consolidated opposition when appropriate, but the required fee must be