24 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,932 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
  2. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,127 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
  3. 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
  4. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling

    516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 950 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that hiring decisions were "discrete acts of discrimination" that could not go forward under the continuing-violation doctrine
  5. Resnick v. Avmed, Inc.

    693 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012)   Cited 445 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs need only allege losses, not unreimbursed losses, for a cognizable injury in a Florida breach of implied contract claim
  6. Tana v. Dantanna's

    611 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 373 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he district court did not err in considering the geographic proximity of use as an eighth factor demonstrating the unlikelihood of confusion."
  7. Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC

    369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 150 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding color functional under traditional test and stating "[w]here the design is functional under the traditional test, there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature"
  8. Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD International Corp.

    263 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the etching of glass bottles to remove batch codes was material alteration of product that created a likelihood of consumer confusion
  9. International Cosmetics v. Gapardis Health

    303 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion
  10. Lone Star Steaks v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc.

    122 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 63 times
    Finding that appellants might satisfy the priority requirement because appellants' federal registration of the mark was prior to appellees' first use of the mark
  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 346,241 times   923 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 156,377 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,805 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
  14. Section 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights

    15 U.S.C. § 1117   Cited 4,888 times   144 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts significant discretion to award damages for a violation of § 1125
  15. 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 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"
  16. Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions

    15 U.S.C. § 1065   Cited 1,105 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing the requirements for incontestability
  17. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 884 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
  18. Section 10-1-370 - Short title

    Ga. Code § 10-1-370   Cited 128 times   13 Legal Analyses

    This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act." OCGA § 10-1-370 Amended by 2017 Ga. Laws 275,§ 10, eff. 5/9/2017.