§

The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama and Paul W. Bryant, Jr. v. William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn

No. 91187103 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2015)
The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama and Paul W. Bryant, Jr. v. William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn

18 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall

    513 U.S. 18 (1994)   Cited 985 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appealing party had "surrender[ed] his claim to the equitable remedy of vacatur" by settling the case and thus "voluntarily forfeit[ing] his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal"

  2. Rio Grande v. Bureau of Reclamation

    601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010)   Cited 399 times
    Holding "withdrawal or alteration of administrative policies" satisfies concerns regarding voluntary cessation

  3. Kappos v. Hyatt

    566 U.S. 431 (2012)   Cited 118 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a federal district court reviews a decision of the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the district court must make "de novo" factual findings based on the new evidence and the administrative record

  4. Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige

    211 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial statutory revisions mooted case

  5. Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC

    739 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2014)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in de novo review of USPTO decisions, the district court acts as trier of fact

  6. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  7. Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc.

    342 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 52 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parties to be collaterally estopped must have had an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue in question

  8. Tessera, Inc. v. International Trade Com'n

    646 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 37 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent exhaustion applied even though the seller failed to pay promised royalties to the patentee

  9. Maryland-Natl. Cap. Pk. v. U.S. Postal Serv

    487 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1973)   Cited 123 times
    Commenting that an EIS to address the aesthetic considerations of a new post office was not required under NEPA "where the claim of NEPA application is focused on alleged [a]esthetic impact and the matters at hand pertain essentially to issues of individual and potentially diverse tastes"

  10. Midamerican Energy v. Mid-America Energy

    250 F.3d 754 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    No. 00-1220. May 19, 2000. PTO. Remanded

  11. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,953 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  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 2106 - Determination

    28 U.S.C. § 2106   Cited 1,587 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate courts authority to "direct the entry of ... judgment ... as may be just under the circumstances"

  14. 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"

  15. Section 1071 - Appeal to courts

    15 U.S.C. § 1071   Cited 406 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Granting a right of appeal only to parties "dissatisfied with the decision" of the Board

  16. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified

  17. Section 2.127 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 2.127   Cited 8 times

    (a) Every motion must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126 . It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved

  18. Section 2.193 - Trademark correspondence and signature requirements

    37 C.F.R. § 2.193   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Signature required. Each piece of correspondence that requires a signature must bear: (1) A handwritten signature personally signed in permanent ink by the person named as the signatory, or a true copy thereof; or (2) An electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, personally entered by the person named as the signatory. The Office will accept an electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section on correspondence filed on paper