David S. Beasley v. William H. Howard d/b/a The Ebonys

9 Cited authorities

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 74 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"
Ritchie v. Simpson
170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”
Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L
808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 52 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration
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"
In re Bose Corp.
476 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 11 times 3 Legal Analyses
Recognizing in the context of administrative proceedings that courts should "exercise caution in applying claim preclusion in an ex parte proceeding"
Books on Tape, Inc. v. Booktape Corp.
836 F.2d 519 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 4 times
Discussing the Board's erroneous reliance on Otto Roth
W.D. Byron Sons v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co.
377 F.2d 1001 (C.C.P.A. 1967) Cited 18 times
Patent Appeal No. 7806. May 25, 1967. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Sidney A. Diamond, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Charles F. Meroni, Charles F. Meroni, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal by opposer-petitioner Byron from the
Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration
15 U.S.C. § 1064 Cited 921 times 51 Legal Analyses
Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services
Section 2.122 - Matters in evidence
37 C.F.R. § 2.122 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"

David S. Beasley v. William H. Howard d/b/a The Ebonys

9 Cited authorities

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"

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Recognizing in the context of administrative proceedings that courts should "exercise caution in applying claim preclusion in an ex parte proceeding"

Discussing the Board's erroneous reliance on Otto Roth

Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"