Fishking Processors, Inc. v. Fisher King Seafoods Limited

14 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,608 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"
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.
960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 657 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding that equitable estoppel is a cognizable defense against patent infringement
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"
Gasser Chair Co. v. Infanti Chair Manufacturing Corp.
60 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 122 times
Holding that the trigger for delay begins when the plaintiff's "right ripens into one entitled to protection"
Hemstreet v. Computer Entry Systems Corp.
972 F.2d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 91 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "mere silence must be accompanied by some other factor which indicates that the silence was sufficiently misleading as to amount to bad faith"
National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema
937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 82 times
Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”
Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. v. Automobile Club de l'Ouest de la France
245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 51 times
Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge
Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.
971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 26 times
Stating that “a laches or estoppel defense in an opposition (or cancellation) proceeding may be based upon the Opposer's failure to object to an Applicant's registration of substantially the same mark ”
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.
987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 18 times
Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 336,116 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1069 - Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings
15 U.S.C. § 1069 Cited 47 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"

Fishking Processors, Inc. v. Fisher King Seafoods Limited

14 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that equitable estoppel is a cognizable defense against patent infringement

Holding that in a Section 256 claim, laches cannot be decided at the pleading stage "based solely on presumptions"

Holding that the trigger for delay begins when the plaintiff's "right ripens into one entitled to protection"

Holding that "mere silence must be accompanied by some other factor which indicates that the silence was sufficiently misleading as to amount to bad faith"

Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

Holding that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark was barred by the doctrine of laches based on the petitioner's constructive knowledge

Stating that “a laches or estoppel defense in an opposition (or cancellation) proceeding may be based upon the Opposer's failure to object to an Applicant's registration of substantially the same mark ”

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Holding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied"