§

Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho, DBA Hitachi, Ltd. v. Absolute Machine Tools, Inc.

91238212 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2020)
Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho, DBA Hitachi, Ltd. v. Absolute Machine Tools, Inc.

34 Cited authorities

  1. Adickes v. Kress Co.

    398 U.S. 144 (1970)   Cited 25,462 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983

  2. H.L. Hayden Co. of N.Y. v. Siemens Med. Sys

    879 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 294 times
    Holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient antitrust injury because it could not connect its losses to behavior violating the Robinson–Patman Act

  3. Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

    668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 109 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

  4. Sebastian Intern. v. Longs Drug Stores

    53 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that where a party places a "collective mark on its products, it is primarily responsible for any confusion that result from the mark's assertion of affiliation, and that confusion cannot be used to support a charge of infringement"

  5. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 190 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  6. Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

    396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 72 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"

  7. Matrix Essentials v. Emporium Drug Mart

    988 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that First Sale Doctrine shields unauthorized retailer of hair-care products from trademark liability

  8. NEC Electronics v. CAL Circuit Abco

    810 F.2d 1506 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 114 times
    Finding gray goods sales not to infringe trademark holder's rights under Lanham Act § 32 (prohibiting use of mark in such a way as to cause confusion) or Lanham Act § 43 (prohibiting false designation of origin)

  9. 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"

  10. Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.

    308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

  11. 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

  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 2.122 - Matters in evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.122   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in inter partes proceeding, "[t]he allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant" but, rather, "a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence"