§

Wonderbread 5 v. Patrick Gilles a/k/a Wonderbread 5 and / or Wonderbread Five

No. 92052150 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2015)
Wonderbread 5 v. Patrick Gilles a/k/a Wonderbread 5 and / or Wonderbread Five

27 Cited authorities

  1. Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.

    318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003)   Cited 712 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that opponent of evidence was "surprised" by expert opinion provided in untimely supplemental report because, prior to submission of supplemental report, expert had stated in his deposition that "he had completed his opinions"

  2. Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A

    429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that "this court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings under the law of the regional circuit"

  3. Crystal Entertainment Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado

    643 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 83 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a company that originally formed a band did not own rights to the band's mark because, inter alia, the company failed to exercise control over the band

  4. 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)

  5. Metro Traffic Control v. Shadow Network

    104 F.3d 336 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that third party may petition to cancel fraudulently obtained trademark registration

  6. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  7. Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

    900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

  8. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  9. 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

  10. Wrist-Rocket Mfg. Co. v. Saunders Archery Co.

    516 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that an order deciding liability but leaving damages for later determination was not final

  11. Rule 36 - Requests for Admission

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 36   Cited 6,143 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,806 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,585 times   271 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"

  14. Section 998 - Offer served prior to resolution of dispute by arbitration

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998   Cited 1,445 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Cost-shifting provision applies to a plaintiff who rejects a section 998 offer and "fails to obtain a more favorable judgment"

  15. Section 16202 - Formation

    Cal. Corp. Code § 16202   Cited 101 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Defining partnership formation

  16. Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

  17. Section 2.120 - Discovery

    37 C.F.R. § 2.120   Cited 22 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

  18. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination

  19. 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