TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Jeffrey E. Martin

21 Cited authorities

Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG
819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016) Cited 113 times 8 Legal Analyses
Finding plausible sales diversion injury where plaintiff alleged that customers would "forego" purchasing its products and instead purchase defendant's products
On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online
229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 77 times
Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services
Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.
696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 49 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that “absent more limiting language in the intrinsic record the doctrine of equivalents can be applied”
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Crash Dummy v. Mattel
601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 28 times 3 Legal Analyses
Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"
U.S. v. Walker
410 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 34 times
In United States v. Walker, 410 f.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2005), this court focused on whether the defendant's substantial rights were harmed by any error in complying with § 851.
Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria
892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 14 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
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"
Rivard v. Linville
133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 23 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon
Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 802 Cited 4,000 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,016 times 98 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Rule 807 - Residual Exception
Fed. R. Evid. 807 Cited 1,617 times 11 Legal Analyses
Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 918 times 50 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 1126 - International conventions
15 U.S.C. § 1126 Cited 185 times 29 Legal Analyses
Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"
Section 2.116 - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
37 C.F.R. § 2.116 Cited 50 times
Making the federal rules of civil procedure generally applicable in TTAB proceedings
Section 2.120 - Discovery
37 C.F.R. § 2.120 Cited 23 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 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"
Section 2.20 - Declarations in lieu of oaths
37 C.F.R. § 2.20 Cited 8 times 7 Legal Analyses
Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746 , or the following declaration language, may be used: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 , and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and

TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Jeffrey E. Martin

21 Cited authorities

Finding plausible sales diversion injury where plaintiff alleged that customers would "forego" purchasing its products and instead purchase defendant's products

Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

Stating that “absent more limiting language in the intrinsic record the doctrine of equivalents can be applied”

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Explaining that we "review[] [the TTAB's] evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion"

In United States v. Walker, 410 f.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2005), this court focused on whether the defendant's substantial rights were harmed by any error in complying with § 851.

Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

Making the federal rules of civil procedure generally applicable in TTAB proceedings

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

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"