§

The Coca-Cola Company v. Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc.

92063353 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)
The Coca-Cola Company v. Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc.

23 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,058 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.

    344 U.S. 280 (1952)   Cited 328 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to apply the Lanham Act extraterritorially

  3. Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co.

    391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 132 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant was prejudiced by opening a second store during plaintiff's delay

  4. Perfect Fit Industries, Inc. v. Acme Quilting Co.

    618 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 140 times
    Concluding that, under New York law, a plaintiff need not prove secondary meaning to obtain relief for trade dress infringement when the trade dress, in itself, is distinctive and memorable

  5. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  6. Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    907 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 39 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding party must prove design acquired secondary meaning before first infringement

  7. Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG

    987 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2021)   Cited 33 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 18-2183 No. 18-2232 02-02-2021 BELMORA LLC, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BAYER CONSUMER CARE AG, a Swiss Corporation; Bayer Healthcare LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants – Consolidated Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. Belmora LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company; Jamie Belcastro, an individual, Consolidated Defendants – Appellees, and Does, 1 – 10, inclusive, Consolidated Defendants. United States of America, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Belmora LLC, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Bayer

  8. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 83 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  9. 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

  10. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,058 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  12. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 923 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services