§

UVeritech, Inc. v. Amax Lighting, Inc.

No. 92057088 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2015)
UVeritech, Inc. v. Amax Lighting, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

  1. Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC International, Ltd.

    96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 230 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying the manufacturer-distributor paradigm to a trademark dispute between Sengoku (who manufactured heaters) and RMC (who arranged for retailer purchases), even though "Sengoku sold the heaters to an independent trading company, Zenith & Co., who then sold them to RMC"

  2. Tactica International v. Atlantic Horizon International

    154 F. Supp. 2d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 55 times
    Adopting the Sengoku modifications to the Wrist–Rocket analysis

  3. Premier Dental Prod. v. Darby Dental Sup. Co.

    794 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 84 times
    Finding irreparable damage to good will even though gray good was identical to goods sold by trademark owner

  4. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 45 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  5. Metro Traffic Control v. Shadow Network

    104 F.3d 336 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that third party may petition to cancel fraudulently obtained trademark registration

  6. 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.”

  7. Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

    900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

  8. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  9. T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac

    77 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that press releases, slide show presentations, brochures, and news articles were insufficient to establish analogous use trademark rights where the evidence presented did not support an inference that "a substantial share of the consuming public had been reached" or that "the consuming public came to identify" the mark with defendant's services

  10. Wrist-Rocket Mfg. Co. v. Saunders Archery Co.

    516 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that an order deciding liability but leaving damages for later determination was not final

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,428 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,265 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  14. Section 1115 - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses

    15 U.S.C. § 1115   Cited 1,913 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that registration of a mark "shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark" but "shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"