The Government of the District of Columbia

25 Cited authorities

Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
503 U.S. 249 (1992) Cited 2,747 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)
Holmes Grp., v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.
535 U.S. 826 (2002) Cited 1,430 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Milner v. Department of the Navy
562 U.S. 2011 (2011) Cited 745 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that FOIA exemptions are "explicitly made exclusive"
Abbott v. Abbott
560 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 468 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "ne exeat right is a right of custody under the Convention"
Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.
469 U.S. 189 (1985) Cited 948 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
553 U.S. 1 (2008) Cited 270 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims for a refund of invalid export tax brought under a statute other than § 7422 were barred
Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh
543 U.S. 50 (2004) Cited 260 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the recovery cap of $2000 in 1640 also applies to cases governed by 1640
Armstrong Co. v. Nu-Enamel Corp.
305 U.S. 315 (1938) Cited 344 times
Holding that registration of a mark "does not create any substantive rights in the registrant"
Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.
608 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 106 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant did not falsely mark its products for purposes of deceiving the public
Gunther v. County of Washington
623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 134 times
Holding that the Equal Pay Act "applies only to situations where a plaintiff contends there has been a denial of equal pay for equal work. It does not apply, for instance, where the plaintiff is performing comparable (but not substantially equal) work"
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,599 times 274 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"

The Government of the District of Columbia

25 Cited authorities

Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Holding that FOIA exemptions are "explicitly made exclusive"

Holding that "ne exeat right is a right of custody under the Convention"

Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive

Holding that claims for a refund of invalid export tax brought under a statute other than § 7422 were barred

Holding that the recovery cap of $2000 in 1640 also applies to cases governed by 1640

Holding that registration of a mark "does not create any substantive rights in the registrant"

Holding that the defendant did not falsely mark its products for purposes of deceiving the public

Holding that the Equal Pay Act "applies only to situations where a plaintiff contends there has been a denial of equal pay for equal work. It does not apply, for instance, where the plaintiff is performing comparable (but not substantially equal) work"

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"