§

US Foods, Inc. v. Orchids Paper Products Company

No. 92056545 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)
US Foods, Inc. v. Orchids Paper Products Company

12 Cited authorities

  1. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online

    229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 78 times
    Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

  2. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 88 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  3. 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.”

  4. 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

  5. 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"

  6. 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

  7. Mission Dry Corp. v. Seven-Up Co.

    193 F.2d 201 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeals No. 5826. December 18, 1951. Albert J. Fihe, Burbank, Cal. (Munson H. Lane, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. John H. Cassidy, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. JACKSON, Judge. On May 2, 1938, appellant filed its application, serial No. 405,933 to register the trade-mark "Charge Up" as applied to non-alcoholic, maltless beverages used as soft drinks, together with syrups and extracts for preparing

  8. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,148 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  9. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,688 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,048 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  11. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 934 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  12. 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"