§

Veritas Medical Solutions LLC

No. 86154703 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)
Veritas Medical Solutions LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that attorney argument did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment

  2. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc.

    901 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    2018-1688 08-27-2018 ZHENG CAI, DBA Tai Chi Green Tea Inc., Appellant v. DIAMOND HONG, INC., Appellee Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Wallach, Circuit Judge. Zheng Cai, Vernon Hills, IL, pro se. Jonathan E. Moskin, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, NY, for appellee. Also represented by Diane Grace Elder, Chicago, IL. Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Hughes, Circuit Judges

  3. In re Sones

    590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use" and disapproving of the "rigid, bright-line rule" the PTO applied

  4. Lands' End, Inc. v. Manback

    797 F. Supp. 511 (E.D. Va. 1992)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Civ. A. No. 92-0715-A. July 31, 1992 Lawrence Jay Gotts, Kirkland Ellis, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Richard Cullen, U.S. Atty., E.D.Va., Richmond, Va., Richard Parker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION CLAUDE HILTON, Chief Judge This matter came before the court on July 16, 1992 on cross motions for summary judgment. Both parties agree that no material facts are in dispute and the court should decide this case on the summary judgment motions. The plaintiff, Lands'

  5. In re DeBaun

    687 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 82-530. August 27, 1982. Ernest M. Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of claims 9 and 10 in application

  6. Application of Marriott Corporation

    459 F.2d 525 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 7 times
    Likening the menus at issue to point-of-sale counter and window displays previously found acceptable

  7. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,886 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  8. Section 2.56 - Specimens

    37 C.F.R. § 2.56   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional