17 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 240,497 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc.
912 F.2d 1238 (10th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,746 times
Ruling that summary judgment on a fraud claim was proper "[b]ecause of the high standard of proof and [plaintiff's] failure to establish each element of fraud"
Tabor v. Hilti, Inc.
703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) Cited 528 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that three-part burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, applies to indirect-evidence Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims
Turner v. Public Service
563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 382 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff's statistical evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of gender discrimination because it did not account for numerous relevant variables, such as "the number of male and female applicants, interviewees, and the like"
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank
574 U.S. 418 (2015) Cited 93 times 17 Legal Analyses
Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question
Universal Money Centers, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
22 F.3d 1527 (10th Cir. 1994) Cited 302 times
Holding that “[d]e minimis evidence of actual confusion does not establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding likelihood of confusion” but that “none of the six factors alone is dispositive”
In re Bose Corp.
580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 171 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO
Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp.
466 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 99 times
Holding remoteness is not an element of a § 1115(b) defense simply because the text of the statute does not contain a remoteness element
Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc.
52 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. 1995) Cited 109 times
Holding summary judgment for the licensee appropriate where no special relationship between the parties existed and no evidence of actual control over the licensee existed
Hornady Mfg. Co. v. Doubletap, Inc.
746 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2014) Cited 61 times
Holding that plaintiff's survey was improperly leading when it asked if the three packages shown individually were of the same, affiliated or unaffiliated sources
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 335,102 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 Cited 7,830 times 2 Legal Analyses
Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,869 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,597 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"

Cornaby's v. Carnet et al

17 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Ruling that summary judgment on a fraud claim was proper "[b]ecause of the high standard of proof and [plaintiff's] failure to establish each element of fraud"

Holding that three-part burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, applies to indirect-evidence Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims

Holding plaintiff's statistical evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of gender discrimination because it did not account for numerous relevant variables, such as "the number of male and female applicants, interviewees, and the like"

Abrogating prior decisions holding this was a legal question

Holding that “[d]e minimis evidence of actual confusion does not establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding likelihood of confusion” but that “none of the six factors alone is dispositive”

Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

Holding remoteness is not an element of a § 1115(b) defense simply because the text of the statute does not contain a remoteness element

Holding summary judgment for the licensee appropriate where no special relationship between the parties existed and no evidence of actual control over the licensee existed

Holding that plaintiff's survey was improperly leading when it asked if the three packages shown individually were of the same, affiliated or unaffiliated sources

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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"