12 Cited authorities
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 223,195 times 42 Legal AnalysesHolding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.
833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 163 timesFinding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products
866 F.2d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 46 timesFinding that as a preliminary to comparing the marks in their entireties it is not improper to give less weight to the generic "pecan" part of the marks in finding no likely confusion in: PECAN SANDIES pecan cookies vs. PECAN SHORTEES pecan cookies
Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services
918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 28 timesNo. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 timesIn Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.
945 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 25 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that PTO may deny registration if applicant has deceived consumers or competitors
Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.
987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 18 timesHolding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion
Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.
961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 12 timesStating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"
Malcolm Nicol Co. v. Witco Corp.
881 F.2d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 12 timesAffirming Board's determination that "Witco used `BRITOL' in a way that created in the minds of people the necessary association between `BRITOL' and the Witco product"
Alfred Electronics v. Alford Mfg. Co.
333 F.2d 912 (C.C.P.A. 1964) Cited 8 timesPatent Appeal No. 7192. July 9, 1964. Harvey G. Lowhurst, Palo Alto, Cal., William G. MacKay, San Francisco, Cal. (Charles R. Allen, Jr., Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant. Charles Hieken, Ezekiel Wolf, Wolf Greenfield, Boston, Mass., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Alfred Electronics, owner of two registrations of "ALFRED" for certain electronics equipment, appeals from the adverse decision of the Trademark Trial
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 340,523 times 164 Legal AnalysesHolding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 934 times 51 Legal AnalysesAllowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services