Globefill Incorporated v. Azul Imports Exports, LLC

22 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 221,284 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"
Allen v. McCurry
449 U.S. 90 (1980) Cited 5,867 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
465 U.S. 75 (1984) Cited 3,609 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"
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
Marrese v. American Academy of Ortho. Surgeons
470 U.S. 373 (1985) Cited 2,035 times
Holding that the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, "directs a federal court to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered"
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.
672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 155 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet
Morris v. Jones
329 U.S. 545 (1947) Cited 267 times
Holding that a default judgment constitutes a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes
Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.
833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 163 times
Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
Riehle v. Margolies
279 U.S. 218 (1929) Cited 262 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may prosecute a claim which arose prior to the appointment of the receiver but may not then execute upon the judgment
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
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 337,251 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,605 times 274 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

Globefill Incorporated v. Azul Imports Exports, LLC

22 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 under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action

Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"

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

Holding that the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, "directs a federal court to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered"

Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet

Holding that a default judgment constitutes a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes

Holding that a party may prosecute a claim which arose prior to the appointment of the receiver but may not then execute upon the judgment

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

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

Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"