Cabot Company Limited d/b/a Cabot Watch Company v. Combat Watch Company, LLC

17 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,495 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Agostini v. Felton
521 U.S. 203 (1997) Cited 1,649 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "lower courts should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions"
Arizona v. California
460 U.S. 605 (1983) Cited 2,261 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights
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."
Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.
308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 45 times
Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)
In re Mighty Leaf Tea
601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form
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
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank
811 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 13 times
Affirming likelihood of confusion
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.
697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 12 times
Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 335,924 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 99,544 times 680 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,805 times 134 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
15 U.S.C. § 1127 Cited 3,011 times 98 Legal Analyses
Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark
Section 1055 - Use by related companies affecting validity and registration
15 U.S.C. § 1055 Cited 151 times 3 Legal Analyses
Noting that the benefit of licensee's "first use" of a mark inures to a licensor only if the licensor "control . . . the nature and quality of the goods"

Cabot Company Limited d/b/a Cabot Watch Company v. Combat Watch Company, LLC

17 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that "lower courts should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions"

Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights

Explaining that proprietary rights are necessary to show priority of use when petitioning for cancellation under section 2(d)

Rejecting an argument that the specific style of a registered mark could serve to distinguish the applicant's mark in standard character form

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Affirming likelihood of confusion

Rejecting argument that SQUIRT SQUAD in standard letters is distinct from SQUIRT registered in “distinctive lettering on a dark medallion”; “[b]y presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

Noting that the benefit of licensee's "first use" of a mark inures to a licensor only if the licensor "control . . . the nature and quality of the goods"