§

Pianos Etc. Inc. v. Kimball Piano USA, Inc. (Nevada Corporation) and Kimball Piano USA, Inc. (Illinois Corporation)

92064361 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020)
Pianos Etc. Inc. v. Kimball Piano USA, Inc. (Nevada Corporation) and Kimball Piano USA, Inc. (Illinois Corporation)

27 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,984 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. Arthur Andersen v. U. S

    544 U.S. 696 (2005)   Cited 316 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that knowingly corruptly persuading another to destroy records to interfere with an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) requires proof that the proceeding was, if not "pending or about to be instituted," at least foreseen when the defendant acted

  3. West v. the Goodyear Tire Rubber Company

    167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 715 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because dismissal is a drastic remedy, it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances, usually after consideration of alternative, less drastic sanctions."

  4. Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp.

    71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 342 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where a testifying expert stated on direct examination that "he had read all of these non-testifying experts' depositions and disagreed with the experts' opinions," the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination "as to why he rejected those opinions," even though that introduced "what otherwise would have been inadmissible hearsay"

  5. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 205 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party must have "intended to impair the ability" of a litigant to put on a case or defend itself to find "bad faith" (quoting Schmid , 13 F.3d at 80 )

  6. Brandt v. Vulcan, Inc.

    30 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 105 times
    Holding that unreasonable delay may render a motion for discovery abuse untimely

  7. Imperial Tobacco v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 88 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that promotional use of a mark on “incidental products” like whiskey, pens, watches, sunglasses, and food did not constitute use of mark for cigarettes

  8. Long v. Howard University

    561 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 45 times
    Denying motion where plaintiff obtained allegedly incomplete document production "over three years prior to the filing of his motion."

  9. 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.”

  10. Cold War Museum v. Cold War Air Museum

    586 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that registration per 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, rebuttal of which requires a preponderance of the evidence showing

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 100,463 times   689 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 51,752 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  13. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 48,184 times   336 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,046 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  17. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 921 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  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

  19. Section 2.2 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 2.2   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)The Act as used in this part means the Trademark Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 427, as amended, codified in 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. (b)Entity as used in this part includes both natural and juristic persons. (c)Director as used in this chapter, except for part 11, means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (d)Federal holiday within the District of Columbia means any day, except Saturdays and Sundays, when the United States

  20. Section 2.195 - Filing date of trademark correspondence

    37 C.F.R. § 2.195   3 Legal Analyses

    The filing date of trademark correspondence is determined as follows: (a)Electronic submissions. The filing date of an electronic submission is the date the Office receives the submission, based on Eastern Time, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. (b)Paper correspondence. The filing date of a submission submitted on paper is the date the Office receives the submission, except as follows: (1)Priority Mail Express®. The filing date