§

KC Brang's Food & Beverage Company LLC v. Casella Wines p

No. 91203238 (T.T.A.B. May. 24, 2013)
KC Brang's Food & Beverage Company LLC v. Casella Wines p

9 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,173 times   41 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. 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."

  3. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc.

    940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the Lanham Act is clear "that the relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public"

  4. Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.

    238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding mark "Number One in Floorcare" was "generally laudatory phrase" not entitled to trademark protection in light of absence of evidence of secondary meaning; noting, "Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods."

  5. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Management Products Co.

    994 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times
    Giving Chevron deference to the TTAB's interpretation of the Lanham Act

  6. Application of Abcor Development Corp.

    588 F.2d 811 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Abcor, the question before the court was whether applicant's alleged mark (GASBADGE) was "merely descriptive" within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

  7. 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"

  8. In re Gyulay

    820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Board did not err in affirming the examiner's prima facie case that the mark was merely descriptive

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 335,380 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit