§

Tea Board of India v. The Republic of Tea, Inc.

No. 91118587 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2006)
Tea Board of India v. The Republic of Tea, Inc.

39 Cited authorities

  1. Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc.

    304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002)   Cited 258 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding this factor was neutral when a survey indicated 6.7 percent of the survey sample were confused

  2. Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurant

    360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 237 times
    Affirming denial of a preliminary injunction

  3. Exxon Corp. v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc.

    109 F.3d 1070 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 207 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding summary judgment of anti-dilution claim on other grounds

  4. Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc.

    295 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 169 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the incontestable status of Therma-Scan's trademark was not relevant to the ultimate issue of whether confusion was likely to occur, and mark was not strong because it was descriptive and lacked broad public recognition

  5. Freedom Card, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase Co.

    432 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 142 times
    Finding no error in the district court's reliance upon the expert's testimony and conclusion that consumers exercise care in the selection of a credit card

  6. Societe Des Proouits Nestle v. Casa Helvetia

    982 F.2d 633 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 148 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the unauthorized importation of an otherwise "genuine" product rendered it "counterfeit" and thus subject to prohibition under the Lanham Act

  7. Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

    833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 163 times
    Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

  8. Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc.

    52 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. 1995)   Cited 109 times
    Holding summary judgment for the licensee appropriate where no special relationship between the parties existed and no evidence of actual control over the licensee existed

  9. 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"

  10. Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc.

    874 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court should have based its assessment of damages on net profits rather than gross profits

  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,737 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  12. Section 3512 - Relationship of agreements to United States law and State law

    19 U.S.C. § 3512   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Referring to the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.A.A.N. 4040 ("SAA")