§

Zachry Infrastructure, LLC v. American Infrastructure, Inc.

No. 91196513 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2011)
Zachry Infrastructure, LLC v. American Infrastructure, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech

    269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 220 times
    Holding that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that parties' products were unrelated even though both fell under the broader category of "corporate security" where the plaintiff focused on physical security and the defendant focused on information and computer security

  2. Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.

    188 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 178 times
    Holding that "a party must demonstrate that it has a reasonable interest to be protected against conduct violating the Act" by asserting "a discernable competitive injury"'

  3. N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp.

    706 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 260 times
    Finding claims not precluded for these reasons

  4. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  5. Dunn Computer Corporation v. Loudcloud, Inc.

    133 F. Supp. 2d 823 (E.D. Va. 2001)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that a claim for the cancellation of a trademark was not ripe "[b]ecause this case does not involve any registered marks," and that the claim could not be brought until "the registration of one of proposed marks by the PTO"

  6. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  7. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  8. In re the American Fertility Society

    188 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels

  9. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

  10. American Bakeries Co. v. Pan-O-Gold Baking

    650 F. Supp. 563 (D. Minn. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that "the case for permitting the PTO to proceed first is bolstered where the PTO adjudication might serve as a final disposition of the matter"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,580 times   260 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"

  12. Section 1119 - Power of court over registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1119   Cited 808 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court the power in an action involving a registered mark to order the cancellation of a registration

  13. Section 1091 - Supplemental register

    15 U.S.C. § 1091   Cited 77 times
    Stating that marks registered on the Supplemental Register "must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services"

  14. Section 1092 - Publication; not subject to opposition; cancellation

    15 U.S.C. § 1092   Cited 21 times

    Marks for the supplemental register shall not be published for or be subject to opposition, but shall be published on registration in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark Office. Whenever any person believes that such person is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark on the supplemental register- (1) for which the effective filing date is after the date on which such person's mark became famous and which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment