§Why CasetextPricing

Foremost Farms USA, Cooperative v. Diamond V Mills, Inc.

Brief in Support of 13 Motion to Dismiss

56 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 269,421 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 282,303 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

    568 U.S. 85 (2013)   Cited 1,527 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Nike's unilateral covenant not to sue mooted Already's trademark invalidity claim

  4. Brooks v. Ross

    578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,368 times
    Holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations

  5. Swanson v. Citibank

    614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 2,117 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff stated a claim under § 3605

  6. McCauley v. City of Chicago

    671 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,660 times
    Holding that to survive a motion to dismiss, a claim against a city for indemnification of a constitutional violation requires an allegation of an underlying constitutional violation

  7. Fleischmann Corp. v. Maier Brewing

    386 U.S. 714 (1967)   Cited 686 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the Lanham Act did not allow for counsel fees because the original text did not provide for them, nor did any subsequent amendments to the statute

  8. Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.

    267 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 524 times
    Holding that the supposed actual confusion among four of plaintiff's friends, none of whom had attempted to purchase the parties' goods, was "irrelevant to the question of confusion" because the four friends "were not relevant consumers under the Lanham Act" and, at best, showed "de minimis evidence of confusion"

  9. Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC

    663 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 337 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that declaratory judgment claim was nonjusticiable because declaratory defendant, in covenant not to sue, “ ‘unconditionally’ and permanently renounced its right to claim, demand or ‘commenc[e], caus[e] or permit to be prosecuted any action in law or in equity’ ”

  10. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Engineering, Inc.

    267 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 283 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the individuals plaintiff advanced as actually confused were not relevant "consumers" under the Lanham Act because plaintiff did not show that they purchased or attempted to purchase the goods in question

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 364,364 times   963 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 165,340 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 65,523 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  14. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,699 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  15. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,856 times   329 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  16. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,912 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  17. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,036 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  18. Section 1115 - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses

    15 U.S.C. § 1115   Cited 1,964 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that registration of a mark "shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark" but "shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect"

  19. 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

  20. Section 1119 - Power of court over registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1119   Cited 845 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court the power in an action involving a registered mark to order the cancellation of a registration