§

DC Comics v. Gotham City Networking, Inc.

No. 91175853 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2008)
DC Comics v. Gotham City Networking, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 218,991 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

    731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

  3. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  4. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.

    222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 72 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

  5. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 47 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

  6. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  7. Univ. Oil Prod. v. Rexall Drug Chemical

    463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that the parent corporation had a "real interest" in the proceeding and thus "standing to institute and maintain it"

  8. Universal Overall Co. v. Stonecutter Mills

    379 F.2d 983 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 2 times
    Entertaining an opposition on the ground that the application contained fraudulent information. See Section 33, (b), 15 U.S.C. § 1115, (b)

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,436 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  10. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,838 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  11. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 907 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  12. Section 2.34 - Bases for filing a trademark or service mark application

    37 C.F.R. § 2.34   Cited 13 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a) An application for a trademark or service mark must include one or more of the following five filing bases: (1)Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are: (i) The applicant's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; (ii) The date