12 Cited authorities

  1. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.

    469 U.S. 189 (1985)   Cited 938 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive
  2. Lyerla v. AMCO Insurance

    462 F. Supp. 2d 931 (S.D. Ill. 2006)   Cited 37 times

    CIVIL NO. 06-679-GPM. October 12, 2006. Jimmy D. Ellis, Burkart Law Offices, Maryville, IL, for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant. Robert W. Cockerham, Brown James, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant. ORDER MURPHY, Chief Judge. This matter is before the Court sua sponte on review of the jurisdictional allegations of the amended notice of removal filed by Defendant AMCO Insurance Company ("AMCO") on September 29, 2006 (Doc. 9). AMCO's amended notice of removal alleges "[u]pon information and belief" that

  3. Dorpan v. Hotel Meliá, Inc.

    728 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2013)   Cited 26 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity of goods where "there is substantial overlap in the core services offered by each hotel"
  4. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
  5. Raymon v. Alvord Independent School Dist

    639 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that student's claim of retaliatory lowering of algebra grade, resulting in "insignificant decrease in her overall grade point average" that did not affect her class rank, was "patently insubstantial"
  6. Advance Stores Co. v. Refinishing Specialties

    188 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999)   Cited 5 times

    No. 98-5153. Argued: February 4, 1999. Decided: August 16, 1999. Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE, No. 95-00093 — JOHN G. HEYBURN II, DISTRICT JUDGE. Robert DeVos (argued and briefed), Fred W. Hathaway (briefed), Bruce T. Wieder (briefed), BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER MATHIS, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Joel T. Beres (briefed), Jack Allen Wheat (argued and briefed), WHEAT, CAMORIANO, SMITH BERES

  7. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,479 times   78 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"
  8. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,281 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
  9. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,681 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
  10. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 9,991 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of declarations instead
  11. Rule 3 - Commencing an Action

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 3   Cited 2,931 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"
  12. Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions

    15 U.S.C. § 1065   Cited 1,104 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing the requirements for incontestability