Volack v. The Enterprise Foundation, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,103 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"
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.”
Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.
293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 35 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.
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"
Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp.
823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 24 times
Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”
Lone Star Manufacturing Co. v. Bill Beasley
498 F.2d 906 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 2 times
Patent Appeal No. 9201. July 3, 1974. Wofford, Felsman Fails, Fort Worth, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellant; Dennison, Dennison, Townshend Meserole, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Howard E. Moore, Dallas, Tex., attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition to appellee's
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,715 times 326 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"
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,886 times 126 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,600 times 274 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"
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"

Volack v. The Enterprise Foundation, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"

Finding “real interest” is shown by “a direct and personal stake in the outcome” or a “legitimate personal interest.”

In Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002), this court held that the marks WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE have trademark strength independent of the Bose “house mark,” although the marks appear in the same sales literature.

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

Finding a “real interest” in a mark's registration can be shown “without proprietary rights in the mark or without asserting that it has a right or has an interest in using the alleged mark”

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

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"