§

Victoria Kheel v. Lions Gate Entertainment Inc.

No. 91222461 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2017)
Victoria Kheel v. Lions Gate Entertainment Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 223,195 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  2. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding 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."

  3. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  4. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  5. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating 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"

  6. Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

    534 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the USPTO had properly limited a national chain's marks to a particular geographic area on the basis of a district court's judgment to that effect

  7. In re Wella A.G

    787 F.2d 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal No. 85-2397. April 1, 1986. Bruce E. Lilling, Lilling Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y., argued, for appellant. Helen R. Wendel, Trademark Examining Atty., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With her on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before FRIEDMAN, DAVIS and NIES, Circuit Judges. FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from

  8. Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co.

    849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trademark is void when the application was filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark.

  9. Smith v. Coahoma Chemical Company

    264 F.2d 916 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the vice president who had developed a mark for his company was not the owner of the mark because "ownership of a mark must be derived from use rather than from a conception of the idea of the mark"

  10. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 340,523 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,922 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,049 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark