§

The United States Olympic Committee v. Tempting Brands Netherlands B.V.

91233138 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2021)
The United States Olympic Committee v. Tempting Brands Netherlands B.V.

14 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. In re Google Tech.

    980 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that courts and litigants often use the term "waiver" when applying the doctrine of forfeiture

  3. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 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"

  4. 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

  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 9 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  8. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 15 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  9. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,607 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"

  11. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 148 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  12. Section 220506 - Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and badges

    36 U.S.C. § 220506   Cited 16 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Protecting International Olympic Committee, International Paralympic Committee, Pan-American Sports Organization, and United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee

  13. Section 1141f - Effect of filing a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States

    15 U.S.C. § 1141f   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a declaration of "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce"

  14. Section 2.107 - Amendment of pleadings in an opposition proceeding

    37 C.F.R. § 2.107   Cited 2 times

    (a) Pleadings in an opposition proceeding against an application filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act may be amended in the same manner and to the same extent as in a civil action in a United States district court, except that, after the close of the time period for filing an opposition including any extension of time for filing an opposition, an opposition may not be amended to add to the goods or services opposed, or to add a joint opposer. (b) Pleadings in an opposition proceeding against an