§

David S. Beasley v. William H. Howard DBA The Ebonys

No. 92066369 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)
David S. Beasley v. William H. Howard DBA The Ebonys

20 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,778 times   41 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. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,297 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  3. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 172 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO

  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. 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

  6. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.

    746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 47 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal on claim preclusion grounds

  7. Young Engineers v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 103 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a previous final judgment on a claim extinguishes "all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action" arose

  8. Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc.

    912 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times

  9. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  10. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.

    220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the term privity "is simply a shorthand way of saying that nonparty [i.e. , a party not named in a prior action] will be bound by the judgment in that action"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,386 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,043 times   334 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Section 2.116 - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    37 C.F.R. § 2.116   Cited 50 times
    Making the federal rules of civil procedure generally applicable in TTAB proceedings

  14. Section 2.127 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 2.127   Cited 8 times

    (a) Every motion must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126 . It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within twenty days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved