§

Lloyd Lifestyle Limited et al. v. Soaring Helmet Corp.

No. 91164265 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2007)
Lloyd Lifestyle Limited et al. v. Soaring Helmet Corp.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC International, Ltd.

    96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying the manufacturer-distributor paradigm to a trademark dispute between Sengoku (who manufactured heaters) and RMC (who arranged for retailer purchases), even though "Sengoku sold the heaters to an independent trading company, Zenith & Co., who then sold them to RMC"

  2. Ritchie v. Simpson

    170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

  3. Person's Co., Ltd. v. Christman

    900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign use is not sufficient to establish priority rights even over a United States competitor who took mark in bad faith

  4. Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.

    823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”

  5. Floater Vehicle v. Tryco Manufacturing Co.

    497 F.2d 1355 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9173. June 20, 1974. Eugene J. Mahoney, Columbus, Ohio (Mahoney, Miller Stebens, Columbus, Ohio) atty. of record, for appellant. Stanley C. Dalton, Chicago, Ill. (Hofgren, Wegner, Allen, Stellman, Chicago, Ill.) atty. of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, LANE, and MILLER, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 175 USPQ 761

  6. Roger Gallet v. Janmarie, Inc.

    245 F.2d 505 (C.C.P.A. 1957)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6302. June 10, 1957. Choate, Ronalds, Reynolds Hollister, New York City (William A. Moore, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, RICH and JACKSON, retired, Judges. RICH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the Assistant Commissioner, reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in an opposition by Roger Gallet to the registration of the mark

  7. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,882 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark