§

Shenzhen Bao Ye Heng Industrial Development Co., Ltd. v. Paul Audio, Inc.

No. 91206084 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)
Shenzhen Bao Ye Heng Industrial Development Co., Ltd. v. Paul Audio, Inc.

16 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. 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. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  4. Mothers Restaurant, v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.

    723 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.

  5. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

  6. Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show

    970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

  7. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.

    987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

  8. 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"

  9. Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc.

    887 F.2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the final judgment rule applies to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(B)

  10. 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 354,568 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  11. 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

  12. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,427 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  13. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,593 times   273 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  14. Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.128   Cited 3 times
    Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB

  15. Section 2.129 - Oral argument; reconsideration

    37 C.F.R. § 2.129   Cited 2 times

    (a) If a party desires to have an oral argument at final hearing, the party shall request such argument by a separate notice filed not later than ten days after the due date for the filing of the last reply brief in the proceeding. Oral arguments will be heard by at least three Administrative Trademark Judges or other statutory members of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at the time specified in the notice of hearing. If any party appears at the specified time, that party will be heard. Parties

  16. Section 2.125 - Filing and service of testimony

    37 C.F.R. § 2.125   Cited 1 times

    (a) One copy of the declaration or affidavit prepared in accordance with § 2.123 , together with copies of documentary exhibits and duplicates or photographs of physical exhibits, shall be served on each adverse party at the time the declaration or affidavit is submitted to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board during the assigned testimony period. (b) One copy of the transcript of each testimony deposition taken in accordance with § 2.123 or § 2.124 , together with copies of documentary exhibits