§

The Bear Partnership and Wings Research and Develop-ment, S.r.L v. Bear U.S.A., Inc.

No. 91120597 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2004)
The Bear Partnership and Wings Research and Develop-ment, S.r.L v. Bear U.S.A., Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    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"

  2. 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.”

  3. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  4. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  5. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.

    811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 42 times
    Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

  6. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.

    926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the shorter phrase was not the legal equivalent of the longer mark

  7. West Florida Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants

    31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Recognizing that separate corporate, business and personal entities that operate as a single entity in the eyes of the consuming public may be treated as such for trademark purposes

  8. Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc.

    705 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that challenger established standing under § 1064 notwithstanding the parties’ written agreement not to challenge each other's registration or each other's rights to use and sell goods under the mark

  9. Martahus v. Video Duplication Services, Inc.

    3 F.3d 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming cancellation of service mark where party seeking cancellation provided sales invoices, draft contract, and testimony demonstrating prior use of mark in dealings with customers and the relevant public on specific dates

  10. Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch

    467 F.2d 501 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 22 times
    Permitting reliance on copyrighted appearance of stuffed rag doll in opposition and cancellation proceedings

  11. 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"

  12. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"