§

Aris A. Zissis v. Karolos Fix

No. 92023470 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2001)
Aris A. Zissis v. Karolos Fix

6 Cited authorities

  1. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., Inc., v. Lehman

    625 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 354 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “defendant's entry into a new business in reliance on plaintiff's acquiescence in the validity of the trademark” can justify relief

  2. Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc.

    689 F.2d 666 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant has no duty to investigate and disclose to the PTO all other possible users of the same or similar mark

  3. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 88 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. Rivard v. Linville

    133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

  5. Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Indust

    441 F.2d 675 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 28 times
    Finding no problem with assigning beer mark to one business entity and brewery assets to another

  6. Miller Brewing Co. v. Oland's Breweries [1971] Ltd.

    548 F.2d 349 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a mark owner sufficiently "rebut[ted] prima facie case of abandonment" because it continued advertising the mark during the period of nonuse, among other activities expressing an intent to resume use