Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,523 times 25 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Parrino v. FHP, Inc.
146 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,254 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of plaintiff's group health insurance plan, where plaintiff alleged membership in the plan, his claims depended on the conditions described in the documents, and plaintiff never disputed their authenticity
Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp.
108 F.3d 246 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 960 timesSetting forth elements of a FHA claim
Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.
799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 457 timesHolding that the Lanham Act protects against post-sale confusion
Sanders v. Kennedy
794 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 376 timesReversing Parratt dismissal where plaintiffs alleged Monell due process claim based on local government’s official policy, practice, or custom, and the "availability of a state tort remedy" was irrelevant
Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp.
768 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 388 timesHolding that, although licensor did not inspect the products, quality control was maintained by reliance on the integrity and control procedures of licensee where licensor and licensee were in a close working relationship
Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple
747 F.2d 1522 (4th Cir. 1984) Cited 295 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that, because PIZZERIA UNO and TACO UNO share a dominant word, their similarity weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion
Exxon Corp. v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc.
109 F.3d 1070 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 206 times 2 Legal AnalysesUpholding summary judgment of anti-dilution claim on other grounds
Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Dynascan Corp.
38 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1994) Cited 213 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the "substantial effects" test was met when telephones were shipped through the United States and the primary defendant was a U.S. corporation who negotiated sales from a Florida office
De La Cruz v. Tormey
582 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1978) Cited 323 timesHolding that motion to dismiss inappropriate unless Plaintiff cannot establish claim "under any set of facts."
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 346,412 times 923 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 2,943 times 95 Legal AnalysesGranting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1115 - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses
15 U.S.C. § 1115 Cited 1,906 times 34 Legal AnalysesProviding 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"
Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions
15 U.S.C. § 1065 Cited 1,105 times 16 Legal AnalysesListing the requirements for incontestability
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 885 times 47 Legal AnalysesAllowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 1058 - Duration, affidavits and fees
15 U.S.C. § 1058 Cited 238 times 25 Legal AnalysesProviding a ten-year duration for registered marks