Walters Gardens, Inc. v. Pride of Place Plants

11 Cited authorities

  1. Thibeault v. Square D Co.

    960 F.2d 239 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 177 times
    Holding dismissal appropriate when plaintiff conceded that he could not make out a case without the precluded expert evidence
  2. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
  3. In re Bayer

    488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Endorsing the use of internet evidence as admissible and competent evidence for evaluating a trademark
  4. 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"
  5. In re Pennington Seed, Inc.

    466 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) “does not have the force and effect of law”
  6. Firsthealth v. Carefirst

    479 F.3d 825 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no excusable neglect where the second and third factors weighed against such a finding
  7. University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.

    703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court added that section 2(a) embraces concepts of the right to privacy which may be violated even in the absence of likelihood of confusion.
  8. Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co.

    299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that $3,000,000 in sales in one year was insufficient to establish secondary meaning
  9. Weiss Noodle v. Golden Cracknel Specialty

    290 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 24 times
    Denying registration of a generically descriptive mark in Hungarian
  10. DIXIE ROSE NURSERY v. COE

    131 F.2d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1942)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Dixie Rose, an applicant had patented a new variety of rose and had sought to register the term "Texas Centennial" as a trademark for the rose.
  11. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods