§

Philanthropist.com, Inc. v. The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists

92065255 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2021)
Philanthropist.com, Inc. v. The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists

23 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,058 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

    805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 113 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a declaration appended to a reply brief "fairly respond[ed] only to arguments made in ... [the patent owner]'s response," as required by § 42.23(b), and that the patent owner had "a meaningful opportunity to respond," as required by the APA

  3. In re Google Tech.

    980 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that courts and litigants often use the term "waiver" when applying the doctrine of forfeiture

  4. General Conference Corp. v. McGill

    617 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 82 times
    Granting summary judgment on trademark infringement against defendant who separated from Seventh-Day Adventists

  5. 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.”

  6. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC

    965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

  7. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mahajan

    923 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Ill. 2013)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the Bierman Court's FTCA analysis survived O'Melveny

  8. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC

    978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 9 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Lexmark controls the statutory cause of action analysis under § 1064

  9. Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co.

    753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 15 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellant demonstrated entitlement to a "statutory cause of action" under the Lanham Act

  10. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina

    670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 362,985 times   962 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,634 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,697 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  14. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 4,039 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  15. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,630 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

  16. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 923 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  17. Section 2.123 - Trial testimony in inter partes cases

    37 C.F.R. § 2.123   Cited 10 times

    (a) (1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be submitted in the form of an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to § 2.20 and in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, filed during the proffering party's testimony period, subject to the right of any adverse party to elect to take and bear the expense of oral cross-examination of that witness as provided under paragraph (c) of this section if such witness is within the jurisdiction of the United States, or conduct cross-examination

  18. Section 2.121 - Assignment of times for taking testimony and presenting evidence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.121   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order setting a deadline for each party's required pretrial disclosures and assigning to each party its time for taking testimony and presenting evidence ("testimony period"). No testimony shall be taken or evidence presented except during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The deadlines for pretrial disclosures and the testimony periods