§

ETS Express, Inc. v. Can’t Live Without It, LLC dba S’Well Bottle

CANC (T.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2019)
ETS Express, Inc. v. Can’t Live Without It, LLC dba S’Well Bottle

10 Cited authorities

  1. Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

    349 U.S. 322 (1955)   Cited 891 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

  2. Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.

    846 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 141 times
    Holding "if a district court action involves only the issue of whether a mark is entitled to registration [(i.e., the same issue as was then before the TTAB)] . . ., the doctrine of primary jurisdiction might well be applicable"

  3. Simpleair, Inc. v. Google LLC

    884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 55 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the fact that the asserted patents "all share a common specification and terminal disclaimer to a common parent" was insufficient to sustain the district court's holding of claim preclusion

  4. 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

  5. CSL Silicones Inc. v. Midsun Group Inc.

    170 F. Supp. 3d 304 (D. Conn. 2016)   Cited 12 times
    Barring claims under CUTPA for alleged trademark violations which began before the statute of limitations period, but noting that courts have embraced a separate-accrual rule for other types of CUTPA claims

  6. American Bakeries Co. v. Pan-O-Gold Baking

    650 F. Supp. 563 (D. Minn. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that "the case for permitting the PTO to proceed first is bolstered where the PTO adjudication might serve as a final disposition of the matter"

  7. Chromalloy American Corp. v. Kenneth Gordon

    736 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that infringement litigation between different marks did not claim preclude later petition in opposition to registration

  8. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 165,590 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  9. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 45,281 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment

  10. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,965 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"