Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

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"

M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entertainment

Holding that, even if the district court's admission of evidence constituted an abuse of discretion, reversal was not warranted because the error was harmless

Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

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."

Selox v. Fausek

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

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"

C. A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp.

Holding that, even under a liberal construction of notices of appeal, when "the appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment only or a part thereof, . . . this court has no jurisdiction to review other judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to and which are not impliedly tended for appeal"

Recot, Inc. v. Becton

Holding that the Board legally erred in not according sufficient weight to evidence of a mark's fame in a likelihood of confusion analysis, vacating, and remanding for further consideration

In re Viterra Inc.

Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

Adopting the Daubert standard

Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

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