§

Red Hat, Inc. v. CMC Magnetics Corp. Ltd.

No. 91113557 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2000)
Red Hat, Inc. v. CMC Magnetics Corp. Ltd.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 242,000 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

  2. Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.

    191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 170 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FTDA intends distinctiveness, in addition to fame, as an essential element for a claim of dilution

  3. Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales

    875 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 178 times
    Holding that marks had to be "very" or "substantially" similar to support a claim of dilution, and finding that "Lexis" and "Lexus" were not substantially similar

  4. Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    165 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 1999)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that magistrate judge's denial of motion to amend without providing an explanation was harmless because "[t]he futility of amending [the plaintiff's] complaint would have been appropriate grounds on which to deny the motion to amend."

  5. Luigino's, Inc. v. Stouffer Corp.

    170 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 1999)   Cited 107 times
    Holding the marks were dissimilar under the "sight, sound, and meaning" test such that dilution did not occur because the customers did not see the marks as essentially the same

  6. 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"

  7. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark

  8. Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enterprises, Inc.

    951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “substantial and undisputed differences” between the parties' use of FROOTEE ICE and FROOT LOOPS warranted summary judgment because “the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”

  9. Wells Fargo Co. v. Stagecoach Properties

    685 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 23 times
    Applying California law

  10. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank

    811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming likelihood of confusion

  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 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,785 times   328 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  13. 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