Spark Networks plc v. JewishAmericanSingles.com, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Hamilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers
240 U.S. 251 (1916) Cited 221 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, as a matter of law, a trademark used on shoes, “The American Girl,” was not a “geographical or descriptive term”
In re California Innovations, Inc.
329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 9 times
No. 02-1407. DECIDED: May 22, 2003. Michael A. Grow, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin Kahn, PLLC of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Charles M. Marmelstein and Evan S. Stolove. Henry G. Sawtelle, Associate, United States Patent and Trademark Office of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Cynthia C. Lynch, Associate Solicitor. Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. RADER, Circuit Judge. California
Krause v. Krause Publications
257 F. App'x 317 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
No. 2007-1364. December 7, 2007. On Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 91/160,072. John A. Clifford, Merchant Gould P.C., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gregory C. Golla. Brian G. Gilpin, Godfrey Kahn, S.C., of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Kristi J. Hinner. Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LINN, Circuit Judge. Judgment PER
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.
703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 20 times 2 Legal Analyses
In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 95,434 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
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"
Section 2.120 - Discovery
37 C.F.R. § 2.120 Cited 23 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

Spark Networks plc v. JewishAmericanSingles.com, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that, as a matter of law, a trademark used on shoes, “The American Girl,” was not a “geographical or descriptive term”

In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

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

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"

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"