§

Paris Glove of Canada, Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp.

No. 92044132 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2007)
Paris Glove of Canada, Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Novak v. Tucows, Inc.

    No. 06-CV-1909 (JFB) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding clause providing that "any action relating to this agreement must be brought in Ontario," in agreement subject to Ontarian law, plainly required disputes to be brought in Ontario

  2. Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L

    808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration

  3. 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.

  4. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  5. In re Holland American Wafer Co.

    737 F.2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 6 times
    Involving trademark registration application

  6. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,290 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  7. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 3,016 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  8. 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"

  9. Section 2.72 - Amendments to description or drawing of the mark

    37 C.F.R. § 2.72   Cited 6 times
    Amending a mark is permissible if “[t]he proposed amendment does not materially alter the mark.”