§

Retrobrands USA LLC v. Intercontinental Great Brands LLC

92066647 (T.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)
Retrobrands USA LLC v. Intercontinental Great Brands LLC

24 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Crosgrove

    637 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011)   Cited 164 times
    Holding that exclusion of defense expert-witness testimony due to confusion and potential to mislead the jury was proper under Rule 403

  2. United States v. Fluker

    698 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 69 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that emails may be authenticated "using circumstantial evidence"

  3. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 85 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  4. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  5. In re Viterra Inc.

    671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any minor differences in the sound of [X–Seed and XCEED marks for agricultural seeds] may go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the marks"

  6. Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum

    586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

  7. Stetson v. Howard D. Wolf Associates

    955 F.2d 847 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 53 times
    Deciding case despite trial court's application of erroneous legal standard where facts adequately supported result

  8. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes Co.

    769 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding sale of canned fish in the Philippines under labels with Plaintiff's trademarks caused injury to Plaintiff that was cognizable under the Lanham Act

  9. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.

    797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 17 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board erred in giving little weight to evidence of registered third-party marks in actual use

  10. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,878 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  12. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,268 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  13. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,989 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  14. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,032 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark