Super Sabre Society v. Lester G. Frazier

13 Cited authorities

United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co.
248 U.S. 90 (1918) Cited 547 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"
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.”
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 13 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
Aquino v. Automotive Service Industry Ass'n
93 F. Supp. 2d 922 (N.D. Ill. 2000) Cited 7 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the defendant "objected to the manner of the deposition, i.e. during the deposition and in its motion for summary judgment," the transcripts of depositions taken telephonically outside of the physical presence of a court reporter were inadmissible
Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976) Cited 25 times
Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect
Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.
849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 4 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,265 times 128 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
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
Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 Cited 2,320 times 19 Legal Analyses
Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 271 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 2.122 - 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"
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
Section 2.99 - Application to register as concurrent user
37 C.F.R. § 2.99 Cited 5 times
(a) An application for registration as a lawful concurrent user will be examined in the same manner as other applications for registration. (b) If it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the mark registered, subject to a concurrent use proceeding, the mark will be published in the Official Gazette as provided by § 2.80 . (c) If no opposition is filed, or if all oppositions that are filed are dismissed or withdrawn, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will send a notice of institution to

Super Sabre Society v. Lester G. Frazier

13 Cited authorities

Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"

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

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding that, because the defendant "objected to the manner of the deposition, i.e. during the deposition and in its motion for summary judgment," the transcripts of depositions taken telephonically outside of the physical presence of a court reporter were inadmissible

Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect

Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

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

Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial

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 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"