Terri Yenko Gould v. General Marketing Capital, Inc. and Supercar Collectibles Limited

19 Cited authorities

Esercizio v. Roberts
944 F.2d 1235 (6th Cir. 1991) Cited 154 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the defendant does not have a right to jury trial for Lanham Act claims where the complaint "requested only equitable relief; an injunction and disgorgement of profits."
Silverman v. Cbs Inc.
870 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where some radio scripts from a radio show had entered the public domain and others were protected by copyright, plaintiff was entitled to use the public domain material without a license
Emergency One, Inc. v. American Fireeagle
228 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2000) Cited 68 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that three consecutive years of non-use of a mark creates a presumption of abandonment
National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema
937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 82 times
Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”
Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.
899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 82 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes
Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France
245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 51 times
Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge
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.”
Crash Dummy v. Mattel
601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 26 times 3 Legal Analyses
Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"
L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. v. Canal Dover Furniture Co.
79 F.3d 258 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 42 times
Docket No. 95-7715. Argued January 31, 1996. Decided March 21, 1996. Ray L. Weber, Akron, OH (Sylvia A. Petrosky, Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor Weber; Dennis P. Hennigan, Peter D. Carmen, Mackenzie Smith Lewis Michell Hughes, Syracuse, NY, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellants. Susan E. Farley, Albany, N Y (Nicholas Mesiti, Heslin Rothenberg, P.C., of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee. Canal Dover Furniture Co., Inc. appeals from a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from displaying, advertising
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 57 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 2,954 times 96 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,585 times 272 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 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 888 times 48 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings
15 U.S.C. § 1069 Cited 47 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"

Terri Yenko Gould v. General Marketing Capital, Inc. and Supercar Collectibles Limited

19 Cited authorities

Holding the defendant does not have a right to jury trial for Lanham Act claims where the complaint "requested only equitable relief; an injunction and disgorgement of profits."

Holding that where some radio scripts from a radio show had entered the public domain and others were protected by copyright, plaintiff was entitled to use the public domain material without a license

Holding that three consecutive years of non-use of a mark creates a presumption of abandonment

Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge

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

Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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"

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"