§Why CasetextPricing

Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. et al

REPLY

13 Cited authorities

  1. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.

    571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,170 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motion for reconsideration should not be used to present evidence that should have been presented previously

  2. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

    174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,076 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"

  3. Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.

    638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 358 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the similarity of two marks can be tested on three levels: "sight, sound, and meaning."

  4. Pharmaceutical Soc. v. Dept. of Soc. Ser

    50 F.3d 1168 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 31 times
    Holding New York law on pharmacist reimbursement preempted by the Medicaid Act "to the extent that the state's co-payment system results in the reduction of payments to pharmacists as a result of non-payment of co-payments"

  5. Larry Harmon Pictures v. Williams Restaurant

    929 F.2d 662 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding single restaurant satisfied "use in commerce" requirement because "the record here established that [restaurant's mark] has been used in connection with services rendered to customers traveling across state boundaries," and distinguishing similar earlier cases where there was no such evidence

  6. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittel S.A.

    824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1127. July 14, 1987. Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Albin F. Drost, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Va., for appellee. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the 30 September 1986 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 1 USPQ2d

  7. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,909 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  8. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,430 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

  9. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,790 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,943 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,578 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 1126 - International conventions

    15 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 184 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an application under § 44 "must state the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, but use in commerce shall not be required prior to registration"

  13. Section 2.32 - Requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application

    37 C.F.R. § 2.32   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that registrants must submit an English translation of any non-English wording and "[i]f the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration of those characters, and either a translation of the transliterated term in English, or a statement that the transliterated term has no meaning in English"