Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Jet Airways, Inc.

8 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"
American Automobile Ass'n v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C.
930 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 252 times
Holding the district court erred in excluding defendant's responses to plaintiff's requests for admissions where plaintiff "included the admissions in its pretrial order as `undisputed issues of fact,' introduced the admissions into evidence at trial and relied on them in support of its case"
Lucent Info. Management v. Lucent Technologies
186 F.3d 311 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 104 times
Holding that, under the Lanham Act, filing an application for federal registration of a trademark confers priority in the mark except against a person who has used the mark prior to such filing
Lucent Info. Manage. v. Lucent Tech.
986 F. Supp. 253 (D. Del. 1997) Cited 34 times
Granting summary judgment in favor of telecommunications provider in trademark action
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.
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
Rule 36 - Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Cited 6,348 times 13 Legal Analyses
Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"
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

Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Jet Airways, Inc.

8 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 the district court erred in excluding defendant's responses to plaintiff's requests for admissions where plaintiff "included the admissions in its pretrial order as `undisputed issues of fact,' introduced the admissions into evidence at trial and relied on them in support of its case"

Holding that, under the Lanham Act, filing an application for federal registration of a trademark confers priority in the mark except against a person who has used the mark prior to such filing

Granting summary judgment in favor of telecommunications provider in trademark action

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

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

Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark