§

Freki Corporation N.V. d.b.a. Pinnacle Sports Worldwide v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.

No. 92066657 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)
Freki Corporation N.V. d.b.a. Pinnacle Sports Worldwide v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,917 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 4,298 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. Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 696 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

  4. 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

  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. 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"

  7. Nasalok Coat v. Nylok

    522 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petition for cancelation of trademark that had been awarded through default judgment was precluded because the petition's effect was to collaterally attack a judgment in an infringement action

  8. Kearns v. General Motors Corp.

    94 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding res judicata did not bar patent infringement claims that were not before court in earlier case dismissed by court

  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. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,610 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 40,075 times   334 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 920 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  14. 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

  15. Section 2.106 - Answer

    37 C.F.R. § 2.106   Cited 12 times
    Defining compulsory counterclaim as "defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the opposition"

  16. 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

  17. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods

  18. Section 2.114 - Answer

    37 C.F.R. § 2.114   Cited 5 times
    Identifying " defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the petition," as the sole compulsory counterclaim to a cancellation petition

  19. Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 2.128   Cited 3 times
    Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB

  20. Section 2.129 - Oral argument; reconsideration

    37 C.F.R. § 2.129   Cited 2 times

    (a) If a party desires to have an oral argument at final hearing, the party shall request such argument by a separate notice filed not later than ten days after the due date for the filing of the last reply brief in the proceeding. Oral arguments will be heard by at least three Administrative Trademark Judges or other statutory members of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at the time specified in the notice of hearing. If any party appears at the specified time, that party will be heard. Parties