§

Fuji Medical Instruments Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. American Crocodile International Group, Inc.

92062760 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2021)
Fuji Medical Instruments Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. American Crocodile International Group, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

  1. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 250 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  2. Star Scientific v. R.J. Tobacco

    537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 397 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intent may be proven circumstantially, "[b]ut such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement"

  3. Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister

    863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 554 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding even “ ‘gross negligence’ does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive”

  4. Symantec v. Computer Assoc

    522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 222 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of discussions between named inventor and putative co-inventor concerning subject matter of claimed invention was insufficient to establish co-inventorship

  5. In re Bose Corp.

    580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 173 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

  6. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 88 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  7. Meineke Discount Muffler v. Jaynes

    999 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that franchisee was not DTPA consumer because DTPA claim was based on misrepresentations about franchisor's intangible trademarks "and not any equipment or services provided by Meineke"

  8. Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria

    892 F.2d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of evidence of intent to resume use during the period of non-use, the TTAB "may conclude the registrant has . . . failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment," even when there is evidence of intent to resume after the period of nonuse

  9. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  10. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 9 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,928 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  12. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,904 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  13. 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

  14. Section 2.33 - Verified statement for a trademark or service mark

    37 C.F.R. § 2.33   Cited 13 times
    Setting forth the oath enshrining the statutory requirements

  15. Section 2.71 - Amendments to correct informalities

    37 C.F.R. § 2.71   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons. (a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization. (b) (1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification. (2) If the verified