§

Threshold.TV, Inc. and Blackbelt TV, Inc. v. Metronome Enterprises, Inc.

No. 91152662 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2010)
Threshold.TV, Inc. and Blackbelt TV, Inc. v. Metronome Enterprises, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Agostini v. Felton

    521 U.S. 203 (1997)   Cited 1,672 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "lower courts should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions"

  2. Arizona v. California

    460 U.S. 605 (1983)   Cited 2,304 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights

  3. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc.

    973 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 432 times
    Holding that a lack of actual confusion is not significant and is understandable where the parties were only competing in the marketplace for a short time

  4. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.

    28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering secondary meaning survey conducted in 1990 even though allegedly infringing product entered the market in 1998

  5. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

  6. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  7. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., v. George Putnam Co.

    811 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 42 times
    Recognizing that single bona fide shipment in commerce may support registration

  8. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

  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. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  11. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,058 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  12. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 150 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

  13. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"