We Vote v. LeYeF, LLC

35 Cited authorities

Gonzales v. Raich
545 U.S. 1 (2005) Cited 1,147 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce ... among the several States' ”
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,083 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"
Wickard v. Filburn
317 U.S. 111 (1942) Cited 915 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce"
United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co.
248 U.S. 90 (1918) Cited 547 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"
Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan
177 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 159 times
Holding that products appealing to diabetics are not substantially similar
Hanover Milling Co. v. Metcalf
240 U.S. 403 (1916) Cited 545 times
Holding that "[i]n the ordinary case of parties competing under the same mark in the same market, it is correct to say that prior appropriation settles the question."
TMT North America, Inc. v. Magic Touch GmbH
124 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 115 times
Recognizing the danger of allowing parties to "us[e] self-serving testimony to gain ownership of trademarks"
On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online
229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 76 times
Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services
Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France
245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 51 times
Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge
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)
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,153 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
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,180 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 802 Cited 3,843 times 11 Legal Analyses
Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 2,949 times 95 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 888 times 48 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

We Vote v. LeYeF, LLC

35 Cited authorities

Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"

Holding that "even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce"

Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"

Holding that products appealing to diabetics are not substantially similar

Holding that "[i]n the ordinary case of parties competing under the same mark in the same market, it is correct to say that prior appropriation settles the question."

Recognizing the danger of allowing parties to "us[e] self-serving testimony to gain ownership of trademarks"

Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge

Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

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

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services