§

Westrex Corporation v. New Sensor Corporation

No. 91170940 (T.T.A.B. May. 11, 2007)
Westrex Corporation v. New Sensor Corporation

9 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,322 times   41 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. Hurwitz v. Sher

    508 U.S. 912 (1993)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that the unavailability, absent compulsory process, of a witness would result in "serious injustice," thus was a sufficient factor in granting the forum non conveniens motion

  3. Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc.

    982 F.2d 494 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that "[t]he trial court properly disregarded the declaration in assessing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact"

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. First Niagara Ins. v. First Niagara Fin

    476 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting a foreign user to oppose a trademark application based solely on use, as opposed to use in commerce, of a mark in the United States

  7. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  8. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,042 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,610 times   274 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"