Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc.

33 Cited authorities

Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,295 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Harris v. Rivera
454 U.S. 339 (1981) Cited 476 times
Holding that "[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding
United States v. Bansal
663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011) Cited 126 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a search warrant describing defendant's "premises" encompassed the curtilage of the residence
Specht v. Google Inc.
747 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2014) Cited 58 times
Holding that once a trademark was abandoned it returned to the public domain, could be appropriated anew, and [defendant] became the senior user.
Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
907 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 39 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding party must prove design acquired secondary meaning before first infringement
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby v. Appalachian Log Homes
871 F.2d 590 (6th Cir. 1989) Cited 86 times
Holding that " trademark that is primarily geographically descriptive must have acquired secondary meaning to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act."
L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.
192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 52 times
Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive
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.”
Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.
892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 21 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness
In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.
797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,765 times 77 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 901 Cited 5,384 times 53 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,914 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 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 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 148 times 19 Legal Analyses
Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 24 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"

Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc.

33 Cited authorities

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

Holding that "[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

Holding that a search warrant describing defendant's "premises" encompassed the curtilage of the residence

Holding that once a trademark was abandoned it returned to the public domain, could be appropriated anew, and [defendant] became the senior user.

Holding party must prove design acquired secondary meaning before first infringement

Holding that " trademark that is primarily geographically descriptive must have acquired secondary meaning to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act."

Holding that “any” use by third parties does not preclude an applicant's use from being substantially exclusive

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Recognizing that indirect evidence, including of "competitive use, evidence that other companies use [a term] in combination with their own . . . marks, third-party registrations and applications for such combined marks," may be relevant for genericness

Discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"

Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

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"