§

Standard International Management, LLC v. One Step Up, Ltd.

91243645 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2019)
Standard International Management, LLC v. One Step Up, Ltd.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,274 times   40 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. Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank

    574 U.S. 418 (2015)   Cited 90 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question

  3. Morris v. Jones

    329 U.S. 545 (1947)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that a default judgment constitutes a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes

  4. 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."

  5. Riehle v. Margolies

    279 U.S. 218 (1929)   Cited 260 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may prosecute a claim which arose prior to the appointment of the receiver but may not then execute upon the judgment

  6. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  7. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  8. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  9. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  10. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,364 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. Section 1058 - Duration, affidavits and fees

    15 U.S.C. § 1058   Cited 240 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Providing a ten-year duration for registered marks