§

The Mars Generation, Inc. v. Albert G. Carson IV

91224726 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2021)
The Mars Generation, Inc. v. Albert G. Carson IV

19 Cited authorities

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

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,869 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked

  2. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 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"

  3. Aycock Eng. v. Airflite

    560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's preparation to use the mark was insufficient to constitute use in commerce

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

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 45 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  5. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  6. International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co.

    727 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the Ninth Circuit's earlier determination that a name and emblem did not serve as a trademark required cancellation of the registration

  7. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses

    2019-1526 10-27-2020 CORCAMORE, LLC, Appellant v. SFM, LLC, Appellee Charles L. Thomason, Thomason Law Office, Louisville, KY, argued for appellant. Johanna Wilbert, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellee. Also represented by Nicole Murray, Christian G. Stahl, Chicago, IL. Reyna, Circuit Judge. Charles L. Thomason, Thomason Law Office, Louisville, KY, argued for appellant. Johanna Wilbert, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellee. Also represented by Nicole Murray

  8. 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"

  9. Couture v. Playdom, Inc.

    778 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 12 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the offering of a service, without the actual provision of a service, is [in]sufficient to constitute use in commerce under Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127."

  10. Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.

    859 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding decision of USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that defendant, rather than plaintiff, owned disputed trademark, even though plaintiff had registered the trademark and defendant had not, because defendant was first to use trademark in commerce

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,805 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,953 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  13. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,584 times   270 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"

  14. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 146 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  15. Section 1053 - Service marks registrable

    15 U.S.C. § 1053   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying same requirement to registration of service marks