STX Financing, LLC v. Stacey Michelle Terrazas

45 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,937 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"
  2. Starbucks v. Wolfe's Borough

    588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 282 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1125 claim requires same showing under Polaroid factors
  3. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 106 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
  4. 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."
  5. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"
  6. Air Land Forwarders, Inc., v. U.S.

    172 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 87 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 803 does not require first-hand knowledge of the original preparation of the document when "an organization incorporated the records of another entity into its own, relied upon those records in its day-to-day operations, and where there are other strong indicia of reliability"
  7. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
  8. 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"
  9. Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Unger

    14 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is well known that a laches defense is unavailable where a defendant intentionally infringes on a plaintiff's mark"
  10. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC

    794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining that TTAB failed to adequately account for evidence of "a fair number of third-party uses" of similar marks by discounting the evidence for lack of "specifics regarding the extent of sales or promotional efforts surrounding the third-party marks"
  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,542 times   324 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
  12. 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
  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 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"
  15. Section 1060 - Assignment

    15 U.S.C. § 1060   Cited 188 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Requiring assignments of federal trademark registrations to be "by instruments in writing"
  16. Section 1063 - Opposition to registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1063   Cited 147 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"