Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Medicines & Health Products Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.

24 Cited authorities

999 v. C.I.T. Corp.
776 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 155 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that we review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw or amend an admission
On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online
229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 77 times
Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 75 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Emergency One, Inc. v. American Fireeagle
228 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2000) Cited 72 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "owner of a trademark cannot defeat an abandonment claim ... by simply asserting a vague, subjective intent to resume use of a mark at some unspecified future date"
In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 30 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services
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.”
Stetson v. Howard D. Wolf Associates
955 F.2d 847 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 53 times
Deciding case despite trial court's application of erroneous legal standard where facts adequately supported result
Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria
892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse
Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.
753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 16 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act
International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co.
727 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 58 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the Ninth Circuit's earlier determination that a name and emblem did not serve as a trademark required cancellation of the registration
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 101,551 times 699 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 36 - Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Cited 6,390 times 13 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"
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,038 times 99 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 928 times 51 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 2.120 - Discovery
37 C.F.R. § 2.120 Cited 23 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"
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"

Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Medicines & Health Products Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that we review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw or amend an admission

Applying Recot in analyzing the similarity of services

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Holding that the "owner of a trademark cannot defeat an abandonment claim ... by simply asserting a vague, subjective intent to resume use of a mark at some unspecified future date"

Holding that certain words referring to key aspects of a genus of services were generic for those services

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Deciding case despite trial court's application of erroneous legal standard where facts adequately supported result

Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

Holding that under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the Ninth Circuit's earlier determination that a name and emblem did not serve as a trademark required cancellation of the registration

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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"

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

Providing that the TTAB "in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional written disclosures or responses"

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"