§

Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belmora LLC

No. 92047741 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2009)
Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belmora LLC

11 Cited authorities

  1. ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.

    482 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "unsolicited proposals" regarding use of the owner's trademark did not defeat the presumption of abandonment because there was "no evidence" that the owner "seriously considered these unsolicited proposals in a manner that would permit a reasonable jury to infer its intent to resume use"

  2. Advanced Cardiovascular v. Scimed Life

    988 F.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 203 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in a Section 256 claim, laches cannot be decided at the pleading stage "based solely on presumptions"

  3. Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co.

    391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 132 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant was prejudiced by opening a second store during plaintiff's delay

  4. Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

    900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

  5. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  6. Nitro Leisure Products, L.L.C. v. Acushnet

    341 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Applying Eleventh Circuit law to a trademark infringement and dilution case

  7. Young v. AGB Corp.

    152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 20 times

    No. 98-1055 DECIDED: August 17, 1998 Appealed from: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Sharon Dinwiddie, Burke Blue, P.A., of Panama City, Florida, argued for appellant. On the brief was Edward A. Hutchinson, Jr. Pamela Ann Bresnahan, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Cory M. Amron. Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. John

  8. In re Rath

    402 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    Nos. 04-1419, 04-1420, 75/753,445, 75/753,597. March 24, 2005. Roy S. Gordet, San Francisco, California, for appellant. John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Cynthia C. Lynch and Nancy C. Slutter, Associate Solicitors. Of counsel on the brief were Lois E. Boland, Director, and Amy P. Cotton, Staff Attorney, Office of International Relations. Before

  9. First Niagara Ins. v. First Niagara Fin

    476 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting a foreign user to oppose a trademark application based solely on use, as opposed to use in commerce, of a mark in the United States

  10. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,633 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  11. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 923 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services