Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE.">
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE.">
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was incorporated in Hong Kong in 1972. DHL and DHLI/MNV were part of a global network in which DHL handled United States operations exclusively and DHLI/MNV handled foreign operations. A Worldwide Coordination Center was established in Belgium. The MOA was extended through 1990. Which was then used worldwide. The agreement was terminable only for cause and had a 15 year term. With an automatic 10 year renewal if both parties were satisfied. If the agreement was terminated. This offer was not well received. A second offer was made on June 14. Was of some value that should be reflected in the final price. DHLI is sometimes used to refer to both DHLI and MNV collectively. This valuation was based in part on the view that DHL's trademark rights were diluted by its agreements with DHLI. Appears to have been done without knowledge of any ownership problems in the trademark. Should not have to pay royalties given its difficult financial position. DHL would have the exclusive U.S. rights to the trademark for 10 years.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal of an injunction granted in a trademark case. They disagree as to whether the mark extends to cover three dimensional objects where two dimensions of those objects have the same general shape (but not the same exact proportions) as the drawing in the registration papers. The parties also dispute whether the mark is valid and whether it has been infringed. Plaintiff Appellee Gibson Guitar Corp. (
|
|
NITRO LEISURE PRODUCTS, L.L.C V. ACHUSNET
Argued for plaintiff appellee. With him on the brief were Ryan M. Patch and Paul Kim. Of counsel on the brief was Mark G. Will and Emery. Argued for defendant appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph P. Mso bidi font family:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who was a member of this panel. Are issues not easily resolved by reference to existing state law. Because we agree with the district court that ITC lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim against Although the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was in good faith as a matter of law. The four principals are LIM's only employees and Feinstein's employees at Corporate Consultants perform LIM's clerical and bookkeeping work. This transaction was its first sale.1 Through the end of 1995. Is significant because on that the date AT&T announced the creation of LTI to the public through a huge media campaign. LTI's Adoption and Use of the Name and Mark LUCENT LTI is the telecommunication and technology business spun off from AT&T in 1996. LIM amended the application after this suit was filed to claim the September 5. At the same time the law was revised to provide that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a trademark action brought by Iberia Foods against Rolando Romeo. Because the Mistolin products sold by Rol Rom are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was also named as a defendant in this action and appears as a party in the caption of this appeal. That decision is not challenged by Optimum on appeal. Is therefore deemed waived. 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Few subjects have generated more ink and consternation in the trademark arena in recent years than the topic of parallel imports/gray market goods. Is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
GMP cross appeals the district court's determination that it is engaged in unauthorized sublicensing. That Appellants are barred by the doctrine of laches from taking legal action now. Based on undisputed evidence establishing that they should have known of GMP's allegedly infringing activities well beyond the statutory period for bringing suit. 1454 (9th Cir. 1985) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BRI is equally owned by four shareholders. Who are also its directors: Al Jardine. BRI is the registered owner of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held that Cubatabaco's COHIBA mark was sufficiently famous in the United States by the time General Cigar. Began selling COHIBA cigars in the United States that the mark was entitled to protection. We hold that even were the famous marks doctrine to be recognized an issue we do not decide here Cubatabaco is barred by the United States' embargo in force against Cuba from acquiring property rights in United States trademarks via the famous marks doctrine. The Cuban COHIBA mark was sufficiently well known in the United States that it deserved protection under the so called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court ruled that the two contracts that are the basis of the breach of contract claims barred the plaintiffs from pursuing trademark related claims. I. BACKGROUND As habitués of New Orleans are well aware. Members of the Brennan family are uncommonly blessed with a talent for restaurateuring. Was opened by Owen E. Dickie was not a signatory to the In the late 1990s.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court ruled that the two contracts that are the basis of the breach of contract claims barred the plaintiffs from pursuing trademark related claims. I. BACKGROUND As habitués of New Orleans are well aware. Members of the Brennan family are uncommonly blessed with a talent for restaurateuring. Was opened by Owen E. Dickie was not a signatory to the In the late 1990s.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case centers on the trademarks of two well known automobile manufacturers Volkswagen and Audi.1 The question is whether the Lanham Act prevents a maker of automobile accessories from selling. The logos and marks of Volkswagen and Audi are aesthetic functional elements of the product that is. They are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is the owner of the well known Harrods of London department store. The defendants are 60 Internet domain names (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Is a summary judgment determination of abandonment appropriate when the record supports an inference that the trademark holder a small. The answer is no. Are sufficient to defeat a claim of abandonment. His business had enjoyed some modest success but later was set back by dwindling prospects. That Mallet's use of the mark while depleting his inventory was neither bona fide nor in the ordinary course of trade. The mark was primarily designed by Mallett's friend Tom Robbins. Sales were promising. His business was building up a reputation for making quality goods. The 1996 inventory order was not depleted until 2002. Mallett was selling backpacks at a steep discount. Although his arrangement with Koko Island was subject to a non competition agreement. Documented sales of Pelican Mark goods were made during this time. Mallett also claims that many other undocumented cash transactions were made as well.1 Although Mallett's enterprise was Mallett declared that he can document sales of Pelican Mark products between 1995 and 2001: 1995.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a trade dress infringement action brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That Travis is liable for manufacturing the molds for Joy's planter. Because Duraco's claim is predicated upon infringement of the trade dress of the product itself. Constitute inherently distinctive trade dress thus serving as a designator of origin that will protect the plaintiff's product design features against copying. Insofar as it is not a symbol according to which one can relate the signifier (the trademark. Along with the degree to which the mark describes the product is unsuited for application to the product itself. We also think that there is a proper set of circumstances for treating a product configuration as inherently distinctive. These circumstances are characterized by a high probability that a product configuration serves a virtually exclusively identifying function for consumers where the concerns over
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a trademark case. The contest is between a large Mexican grocery chain that has long used the mark. A small American chain that was the first to use the mark in the United States. In a locality where shoppers were familiar with the Mexican mark. The chain was quite successful. Two of the Baja stores were in Tijuana. Douray and Rafid have since controlled the two stores through various limited liability corporations.1 In 1995. Which was after the opening of the Dallos' first store and before the opening of their second. It did nothing about the Dallos' store despite Grupo Gigante's knowledge that the Dallos were using
|
|
00-6277 -- VITTORIA NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. V. EURO-ASIA IMPORTS INC. -- 12/12/2001
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a manufacturer of specialty motor vehicles. Among the replicars it manufactures and promotes for sale are race cars and roadsters modeled after the
|
|
GAMUT TRADING CO., ET AL, V. USITC
With him on the brief was Lloyd W. With her on the brief were Lynn M. Of counsel
|
|
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY V. ADVANTAGE RENT-A-CAR
The owner of a famous mark can oppose the registration of a diluting mark without establishing likelihood of confusion. This case presents the question whether such an opposition can be maintained when the applicant s mark was used in a limited geographic area before the opposer s mark became famous. This case also requires us to decide whether an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § . To obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. . The owner of a famous mark must establish that the allegedly diluting use began after the mark ha[d] become famous. The Act provides a list of non exclusive factors that a court is to consider in determining whether a mark is famous and. Mso bidi font family:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked who owns the founder's surname. We are also asked whether defendants the founder's grandson and his business have engaged in trademark infringement. Because we conclude that plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Although the personal aspects of this dispute are not material to our resolution of this appeal. The history of the Doebler family businesses is critical to this matter. A case that is now before us for a second time. 4 A. Other family members were involved in the business as well. All three families were represented on Hybrids' board of directors as well. Jones and Camerer are officers. The Partnership's original functions were ultimately split between Partnership. Doebler III had ties to all three entities: he was partnered with his father in the Partnership and remains an owner of the successor LLC. He is co owner of Farmland. He was but no longer is a shareholder.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because substantial evidence supports the Commission's conclusion that all or substantially all of SKF USA's bearings are not predictably and consistently accompanied by post sale services and its consequent conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion between SKF USA's goods and the gray market goods. Inc. is a manufacturer of ball bearings located in the United States. It produces SKF marked bearings in the United States and also imports SKF marked bearings that are manufactured abroad by SKF Manufacturing Units. SKF USA and SKF Manufacturing Units are owned by the same parent company. Distributors to which SKF USA sells but with whom SKF USA does not have an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Of which Riso is the sole shareholder. exclusive use and Beauty Time claims to have used the mark exclusively from 1987 to 1991. . Vujevich filed an affidavit in connection with the declaration asserting that he was the sole owner and user of the trademark. These products were distributed under the names VU Skin Systems and DPM Skin Systems. was the owner of the DPM trademark and that Beauty Time was infringing on the trademark. 1058 (Supp. 1997) provides for the cancellation of a prior registration of a mark
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Stanley C. With her on the brief were John M. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (Bayer) appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruling that the proposed mark ASPIRINA is merely descriptive for analgesic goods. Because the Board's ruling is supported by substantial evidence. The examining attorney initially refused registration on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. The examining attorney found that ASPIRINA is the Spanish word for aspirin and provided an online dictionary definition that equates ASPIRINA with aspirin. Bayer responded by asserting that ASPIRINA was a coined term with no known meaning in English or any other language. Bayer also asserted that the translation tool used by the examining attorney improperly translated ASPIRINA as aspirin without noting that Bayer was the origin of the goods and that Bayer was working with GOOGLE to resolve this translation
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Of which Riso is the sole shareholder. Plaintiffs allege that Vujevich had orally assigned the DPM mark to Beauty Time in 1987 for its 2 exclusive use and Beauty Time claims to have used the mark exclusively from 1987 to 1991. Vujevich filed an affidavit in connection with the declaration asserting that he was the sole owner and user of the trademark. These products were distributed under the names VU Skin Systems and DPM Skin Systems. Was the owner of the DPM trademark and that Beauty Time was infringing on the trademark. The amended 1. 15 U.S.C. § 1058 (Supp. 1997) provides for the cancellation of a prior registration of a mark
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets.
|
|
RITCHIE WILLIAM B V. SIMPSON ORENTHAL JAMES
THE JUICE were filed on behalf of Orenthal James Simpson for use with a broad range of goods. After the marks were approved by an examiner in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 1 the name
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Robert G. With him on the biref were Michael J. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant IFF is a New York corporation engaged in the business of producing and marketing flavor and fragrance essences. The specimens did not have an ". The 'XXXX' designations are themselves not part of the mark.". That amendment of the drawings was not the real issue in the rejection. The crux of the matter was that the ". Elements and that there was no formal PTO policy concerning the registerability of ". Conducting a complete and thorough search is extremely difficult. . . . A comprehensive search for all or even most permutations of applicant's marks is next to impossible. Applicant's definition of the phantom elements in these cases is extremely broad and may include any herb. Now before us is IFF's appeal of the Board's decision affirming the final rejection of the three applications for the ". We uphold the Board's factual findings unless they are arbitrary. Ct. 1816 (1999) (holding that scope of review of PTO's findings is subject to Administrative Procedure Act (".
|
 |
99-2247 -- CREATIVE GIFTS INC. V. UFO -- 12/15/2000
Including the contention that the term
|
|
98-3222 -- UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. V. MIDLAND FUMIGANT INC. -- 03/06/2000
Which is used to fumigate grains. Which was granted in September of the same year. On April 19. The case was settled in late October 1991. (5) not sell any further product labeled Quick Phos unless the product was manufactured by United. The cases were consolidated for trial. Fox was liable for fraud in the breach of the settlement agreement. Improper Jury Instructions Midland's first assigned error is somewhat confused. Midland states
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Nicholas Mesiti and Brett M. Of counsel was William A. On the brief were James M. With him on the brief was S. Of counsel was Goutam Patnaik. Deere alleged that Deere forage harvesters that had been manufactured solely for sale in Europe (the European version forage harvesters) were being imported into the United States. Deere argued that the European version forage harvesters were materially different from the forage harvesters manufactured and authorized for sale in the United States (the North American version forage harvesters). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6). We will not overturn the ITC's factual findings if they are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Lanham Act. 04 1588 3 Many of the goods that are forbidden from importation under section 1337 are what are referred to as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court's decision in all respects. Tchou is an electrical engineer. Tchou is also the sole founder. Tchou registered the domain name www.epix.com with Network Solutions.2 Tchou testified that he registered the domain name epix.com because the catchy name connoted electronic (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is the second infringement case we have heard regarding the same trademark. It may fairly be said that in many cases a handbag is so essential that its owner would be lost without it. We emphasized that to determine whether two products are confusingly similar it is improper to conduct a side by side comparison in 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 lieu of focusing on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Vuitton's trademark Multicolore handbag design is the same as it was in the earlier case.
|
|
PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)
Both of which accompanied the release.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 5 the cite to the law review article is corrected to begin
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
DaimlerChrysler timely filed this appeal and raised the following issues: 1) whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of progressive encroachment to its dilution claim by finding that laches barred the claim even though prior sales of H1 vehicles occurred in a different market than the mainstream SUV market where the H2 is 1 (...continued) the early 1980s and was later released for consumer sales in 1992 as the
|
|
PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)
Both of which accompanied the release.
|
|
00-4045 -- BAD ASS COFFEE CO. OF HAWAII V. BAD ASS COFFEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -- 10/30/2001
BACH sought and was granted preliminary injunctions enjoining BACLP from using the Trademark in Hawaii and Nevada. The three cases were consolidated in this appeal. This court affirms. - FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties are well acquainted with the copious record in this case. This court includes only the background material necessary to fully understand our holding. Jones was formerly employed by Royal Aloha Coffee. BACLP is a Nevada limited partnership in which Jones is the principal. Nevada. Almost before the ink was dry on the agreements. BACH sent BACLP written notice that it was terminating both the MDAN and the TDAN based on BACLP's default under the Promissory Note and the APSA. Concluding that BACH was entitled to terminate the MDAH. BACLP's motion to vacate the arbitration award was denied. This motion was granted on April 13. The appeals were consolidated and all are properly before this court. - DISCUSSION
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Mistake or deception. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis added).4 The federal cause of action for dilution is found in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). We hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's dilution claims was improper. Because we hold that Kellogg's infringement claim is not in fact barred by acquiescence. We also hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's bad faith infringement claim was improper. Opining that the cartoon tiger was too whimsical and. 000 of these gas stations were owned and operated by independent distributors (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The parties were left with an arbitration award and two district court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Improv West is the founder of the Improv Comedy Club and the creator and owner of the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal in a declaratory judgment action commenced by Betterbox Communications. I. Betterbox and Black Box each sought to introduce the testimony of an expert witness on the following question: whether there was a likelihood that consumers would be confused by the Betterbox and Black Box marks. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Which requires an expert witness to have
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appeal the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial claiming that they are entitled to a new trial because the district court's denial of their mid trial motion for judgment as a matter of law had the effect of an evidentiary ruling that barred them from presenting their defense to Watec Japan's trademark infringement claim. Watec America and Liu argue that the excessiveness of the jury's original trademark infringement damages award demonstrates that the entire verdict was tainted by passion and prejudice. Watec America and Liu contend that the district court erred in determining that this was an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery. Inc. (
|
|
03-4233 -- WORTHINGTON V. ANDERSON -- 10/13/2004
The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Kleger was on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The action was prompted by Garcia's use on his websites of the word
|
|
99-5215 -- BISHOP V. EQUINOX INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 07/20/2001
In which we remanded to the district court to determine whether the Estate was entitled to a portion of Equinox's profits during the infringing period. Because we find that the district court was acting within its discretionary authority on both issues. Bishop became aware that Equinox was marketing a product using the phrase
|
|
INTERNATIONAL NUTRITION COMPANY, V. HORPHAG RESEARCH, LTD.,
With him on the brief was Donna A. With him on the brief was Michael A. Which are found in extracts of pine bark and other plants. Has controlled several entities that have distributed and marketed plant extracts for dietary and nutritional supplements. SCERPA registered the trademark PYCNOGENOLS in France in March 1989.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Forsythe.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Texas WAB appeals the district court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment sua sponte to Virginia W A B on the basis that Texas WAB was barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and acquiescence from enforcing in Virginia its exclusive right to use the WHATABURGER® mark. We affirm the district court's order to the extent it concludes that Texas WAB is the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After Judge Paez was elevated to the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants are the trustees of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
INTRODUCTION Jerome Foote was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Kansas of trafficking in counterfeit goods and conspiring to traffic in counterfeit goods based on his sale of a single counterfeit Mont Blanc pen in violation of the Counterfeit Trademark Act. BACKGROUND Foote was charged in the district court with forty four counts of counterfeiting. FBI Special Agent Albert Pisterzi was one recipient of a mailing promoting Foote's business. Pisterzi went to Foote's home and
observed that Foote was selling goods from which the original tags had been removed and replaced with tags bearing various famous trademarks. Went to Foote's home and determined that at least some of the goods sold by Foote were counterfeit. Foote told Smith during the visit that the items were the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
E One's AMERICAN EAGLE mark
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While recognizing that the entities have undergone name changes and consolidation in the past. 2 1 I. Is a federally chartered bank holding company with its principal place of business in FBS owns banks in several states and provides Since the early 1970s. Credit cards even though FBS did not have an office in Iowa. The former Metropolitan Federal Banks in Iowa were renamed First Bank Iowa. Is an Iowa chartered bank with its principal place of business in West Des Moines. FB was a From 1938 to 1993. FB was known as First FB has never owned a registered FB relies instead on 2 the common law of trademarks for its claim of an exclusive right to use FIRST BANK in connection with banking services provided in these counties. Also testified that he referred to FB as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge McKeown *Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: If this were a sci fi melodrama. I Barbie was born in Germany in the 1950s as an adult collector's item. Aqua is a Danish band that has. (The lyrics are in the Appendix.). MCA also brought a defamation claim against Mattel for statements Mattel made about MCA while this lawsuit was pending. Mattel appeals the district court's ruling that Barbie Girl is a parody of Barbie and a nominative fair use. That MCA's use of the term Barbie is not likely to confuse consumers as to Mattel's affiliation with Barbie Girl or dilute the Barbie mark. All three foreign defendants are affiliated members of Universal Music Group and have an active relationship with each other and with domestic members of the Group. This conduct was expressly aimed at. Mattel's trademark claims would not have arisen
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were William H. With him on the brief were Kara F. The total damages award was based on the jury's finding that Aero was entitled to recover $2.95 million as patent infringement damages. The aspect of the invention that is the focus of this appeal is the claimed valve assembly. It is by means of the valve assembly that the air mattress is inflated and remains inflated. The specification states that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge McKeown *Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge McKeown *Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge McKeown *Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 seeking a declaration that Travelers was obligated to participate in the defense of Nissan Computer Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The action was prompted by Garcia's use on his websites of the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The critical issue in dispute is whether the State owns any protectible interest in the trademarks. Which were both built in the 1820s. Each building has a rich history: Casa de Pico was built by Pio Pico. While Casa de Bandini was built by a Peruvian immigrant of Italian descent who became a prominent San Diegan. The Casa de Pico building was operated as the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Georgi vodka is sold primarily in New York state. Is one of the top selling vodkas in the New York metropolitan area. It is generally cheaper than the leading nationally distributed vodkas. Bacardi is the largest selling brand of hard liquor in the United States. Inc. is one of the leading producers of beers and malt beverages in the United States. A new label was designed. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The cartoon was syndicated and the Skippy character was marketed in cartoon books. This mark was transferred to appellant Skippy. Appellant Joan Crosby Tibbetts is Percy Crosby's daughter and the current president of Skippy. CPC International and its predecessors have sold peanut butter in the United States under the trademark SKIPPY since 1933. A
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are called upon to consider. We have juris 132 HORPHAG RESEARCH v. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are largely the same as those upon which we based our previous opinion. Horphag was granted the United States trademark for the mark Pycnogenol.2 Since then. Pycnogenol is now one of the fifteen most sold herbal supplements in the United States. The names of the individual companies are irrelevant for our purposes. GARCIA 133 Garcia was once a licensed dealer for Horphag and sold Horphag's products through his Internet site
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Defendant Michael Kremer was dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical BOSLEY MEDICAL INSTITUTE v. Was uncomplimentary of the Bosley Medical Institute. The problem is that
|
|
WILHELM PUDENZ, GMBH V. LITTLEFUSE, INC. (6/7/1999, NO. 98-8097)
We hold that registered trademarks that have become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 may still be declared invalid if they are found to protect the functional features of a product. BACKGROUND Littlefuse and Pudenz are both companies that manufacture and market. At issue in this case are two of Littlefuse's registered trademarks associated with the marketing of this fuse. The first is the subject of U.S. The second is the subject of U.S. Both registrations have also achieved
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held that it was clear from the complaint that plaintiffs' claims are subject to the two year statute of limitations governing actions for fraud under Virgin Islands law and that their filing of an earlier identical action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Since the complaint in this case was not filed within the two year limitations period. Plaintiffs submit that the most appropriate statute of limitations under Virgin Islands law is the catch all six year statute of limitations for
|
|
WILHELM PUDENZ, GMBH V. LITTLEFUSE, INC. (6/7/1999, NO. 98-8097)
We hold that registered trademarks that have become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 may still be declared invalid if they are found to protect the functional features of a product. BACKGROUND Littlefuse and Pudenz are both companies that manufacture and market. At issue in this case are two of Littlefuse's registered trademarks associated with the marketing of this fuse. The first is the subject of U.S. The second is the subject of U.S. Both registrations have also achieved
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Background Terri Welles was on the cover of Playboy in 1981 and was chosen to be the Playboy Playmate of the Year for 1981.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
BELLSOUTH V. DATANATIONAL
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The promotion was so popular with Timex that it just kept on ticking1 and continued using the footage well beyond any permission to do so. The result is a lawsuit that has taken on a life far beyond a simple copyright and trademark case. The consequence of this appeal is a series of rulings resulting in yet another round in the trial court. Arguing that Polar Bear's infringement claim is time barred. Even if it is not. The jury award is invalid because the evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient causal nexus between the infringement and the amount awarded. Because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the lost and indirect profits resulted from Timex's infringeThe phrase
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were John M. Of counsel was Heather F. Because the Board correctly determined that the applied for mark is the generic designation for that variety of grass seed and hence is not entitled to trademark registration. Applicant had previously designated the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question in this case is whether Thane has violated the federal trademark laws by its choice of name for its product. Trek products are sold through more than 1. Trek is the country's most popular and most respected bicycle brand. Trek was granted a United States trademark for the use of TREK on bicycles and bicycle frames. The most prominent athlete Trek sponsors is cancer survivor Lance Armstrong. Pictures of Armstrong with a TREK bicycle have appeared in The New York Times and on Wheaties boxes. Thane maintains that this venture was a failure. This stationary trainer would not have pedals. Because it is meant to be used while standing. 13384 THANE INT'L v.
|
|
DAVIDOFF & CIE V. PLD INT'L CORP. (8/28/2001, NO. 00-14368)
Subsequent sales of the product by others do not constitute infringement even though such sales are not authorized by the trademark owner. Because we conclude that the resold products in the instant case are materially different. Is the manufacturer of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrance products and owns the U.S. trademark. PLD International Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: The caption is changed to reflect the addition of Case No. 00 55599. This case number was inadvertently omitted from the opinion as filed. The question in this case is whether Thane has violated the federal trademark laws by its choice of name for its product. Trek products are sold through more than 1. Trek is the country's most popular and most respected bicycle brand. Trek was granted a United States trademark for the use of TREK on bicycles and bicycle frames. The most prominent athlete Trek sponsors is cancer survivor Lance Armstrong. Pictures of Armstrong with a TREK bicycle have appeared in The New York Times and on Wheaties boxes. Thane maintains that this venture was a failure. This stationary trainer would not have pedals. Because it is meant to be used while standing.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended. Polar Bear is not entitled to any recovery under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Nor is Polar Bear entitled to a new trial on damages under § 504.
|
|
DAVIDOFF & CIE V. PLD INT'L CORP. (8/28/2001, NO. 00-14368)
Subsequent sales of the product by others do not constitute infringement even though such sales are not authorized by the trademark owner. Because we conclude that the resold products in the instant case are materially different. Is the manufacturer of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrance products and owns the U.S. trademark. PLD International Corporation (
|
|
99-6036 -- U.S. V. GILES -- 05/19/2000
We are asked to determine whether an individual who traffics in trademarks which are not attached to any goods or services violates the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. The items at issue in this case are wholesale
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Subsequent sales of the product by others do not constitute infringement even though such sales are not authorized by the trademark owner. Because we conclude that the resold products in the instant case are materially different. Is the manufacturer of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrance products and owns the U.S. trademark. PLD International Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Cynthia C. Of counsel on the brief were Lois E. The decisions of the Board have been consolidated on appeal. BACKGROUND Rath is a German citizen who applied to register the marks for goods and services including. The applications were based upon ownership of a German trademark registration for the marks. The marks were again found to be primarily merely surnames. The Board also held that section 44 of the Lanham Act (which implements the Paris Convention) does not require registration of a mark that is primarily merely a surname. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). 1420 2 1 II Rath does not appeal the Board's holdings that his marks are primarily merely surnames under the meaning of section 2(e)(4). He specifically
|
|
99-6036 -- U.S. V. GILES -- 05/19/2000
A revised opinion is attached. Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER. We are asked to determine whether an individual who traffics in trademarks which are not attached to any goods or services violates the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. The items at issue in this case are wholesale
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The product's primary active ingredient.1 Although the scientist who devel Olivenol is now sold not only in tablet form. As there is no relevant difference between the three dosage methods for purposes of this appeal. We will use
|
|
01-6049 -- SALLY BEAUTY CO. INC. V. BEAUTYCO INC. -- 09/03/2002
Plaintiff Marianna is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from the denial of preliminary relief in a trademark infringement action. Because the denial of the preliminary injunction was premised on legal errors. The following facts are undisputed. It advised Andrx to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Uhrbach were on brief for appellant. Hagopian and Visconti & Petrocelli Ltd. were on brief for appellee. CBS provided television stations with a program called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. Sun Life Insurance Company of America The (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is bargainbeanies.com. Ty's suit is based on the federal antidilution statute. That in any event the injunction (which has remained in effect during the appeal) is overbroad. The fundamental purpose of a trademark is to reduce consumer search costs by providing a concise and unequivocal identifier of the particular source of particular goods. The consumer who knows at a glance whose brand he is being asked to buy knows whom to hold responsible if the brand disappoints and whose product to buy in the future if the brand pleases. The traditional and still central concern of trademark law is to provide remedies against this practice. Confusion is not a factor here. Perryman is not a competing producer of beanbag stuffed animals. The reason is that state and now federal law also provides a remedy against the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will refer to the term as
|
|
THE NAUTILUS GROUP V. ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.
Argued for plaintiff appellee. With him on the brief was Mark S. Argued for defendant appellant. On the brief were Larry R. Todd. Of counsel were Robyn L. Trademark to sell its exercise equipment. Nautilus is the holder of the ". Tab stops:.5in'>Nautilus and ICON are direct competitors in the market for home exercise equipment. Both produce resistance training systems that use bendable rods. In Nautilus's product. The rods are arranged vertically. Outward. The rods are structured to resist this outward movement. 000 machines have been sold. The bendable rods are arranged horizontally so that they bend downward. Is replaced by a circular crosshairs. Beneath the mark. Line height:200%'>While its appeal of the patent infringement issue was pending.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The Internet is an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A seed company might pay to have its advertisement displayed when searchers enter terms related to gardening. NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS have its advertisements appear on the page listing the search results for gardening related terms: the ad would be
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
One of which is an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether a state law claim alleging conversion of an idea is completely preempted by § 301 of the Copyright Act. Cotham liked Dunlap's idea and was invited by Dunlap to become the co founder of G&L Bank. Offered her the position of A detailed discussion of the intricate facts involved in this case is unnecessary because the outcome of this appeal depends upon whether the district court properly exercised federal subject matter jurisdiction. 3 1 President of G&L Bank. After Cotham and Griffith were on board. Before his employment term was to end. Dunlap was terminated from his position. Dunlap's claims in this appeal are based on the alleged breach of this employment agreement and the ownership and use of the G&L Bank trademark. (2) whether Dunlap's federally registered trademark was valid under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051. That they stole his Bank idea by continuing to operate the Bank after he was terminated and that they fraudulently induced him to give up his rights in the G&L Bank trademark and then continued to use the mark after his termination (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). Was an infringement of American FireEagle's common law trademark rights. E One was infringing AFE's rights. AFE was infringing E One's rights. The issue was ultimately submitted to a jury. Arguing (1) that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because we agree that certain of the district court's instructions to the jury were inadequate. E One is a fire and rescue truck manufacturer located in Ocala. The purchase price for American Eagle was $6.5 million. Though only $1.6 million was attributed to the company's tangible assets. The balance was attributed to good will. Although the trucks were built according to American Eagle blueprints and in keeping with American Eagle style. The Gainesville plant was closed shortly after June 1992. Those components (assuming they were serviceable) would be installed on a new or rebuilt chassis. By mid 1992 E One was no longer manufacturing any new fire trucks under the AMERICAN EAGLE brand.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we find that confusion was likely. Kemp
|
|
LEIGH V. WARNER BROS., INC. (5/25/2000, NO. 99-10087)
The role of the court in determining whether images are
|
|
SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-10087.man.html">LEIGH V. WARNER BROS., INC. (5/25/2000, NO. 99-10087)<BR></A><BR>
The role of the court in determining whether images are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041282P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Everest Capital Limited is a Bermuda based investment advisor that began managing off shore
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED5DFDC70DDFDEE5882571A3008005FB/$file/0416001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MCCORD tion of an ex parte temporary restraining order (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002373.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Inc. has been manufacturing and distributing commercial electronic security control systems since 1967.1 Its devices are designed to track the physical location of goods and are sold to retailers to prevent merchandise theft. It is one of the two dominant manufacturers in the retail security products market. Which is registered with the United States Trademark office.2 1. Our recitation of the facts will be brief. Its principal and most successful products are electronic article surveillance systems designed to alert retailers when items are removed from confined areas. The systems work by placing circuited tags on merchandise which are deactivated at the time of sale. If the tags are not deactivated. Checkpoint Systems also manufactures electronic access control systems in the form of security cards that permit selected personnel to have access to restricted areas. Checkpoint Systems intends to use these electronic access control systems to make
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1269.html">DARREL A. MAZZARI V. JAMES ROGAN<BR></A><BR>
For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Sydney O. On summary judgment in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) that Mazzari and Sheedy s claims are unpatentable.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because no genuine issue of material fact as to the grounds of rejection exists and the district court correctly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0432p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * Summary judgment was ap infringement claim since TrafFix of material fact. It cannot intentionally infringed MDI's judgment on this issue is affirme determine damages for the infri motions for summary judgment competition claims. The dis erroneous on the functionality qu summary judgment to TrafFix actions pursued by MDI were th the law. The consensus on this question is that patent and trademark law protect different interests. The trade dress of MDI's WindMaster signs is protectable separately from its patents. MDI's claim of trademark and trade dress infringement is not so outlandish as to appear to be brought only to burden a competitor with litigation. This is especially true given the heretofore unsettled character of trade dress protection for product configurations in this circuit. The district court properly held that MDI's trade dress claim was not an unlawful attempt to monopolize in violation of § 2. There is no reason to have allowed discovery on the market definition issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1968.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Samson PC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/051307732AED999E88256BF20076E542/$file/0035815.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue presented is whether summary judgment was appropriate on grounds that the design is functional and therefore not protectible as a trademark. Underlying this question is the evidentiary role of a trademark registration in such a proceeding. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment against the trademark holder because the product design is not fanciful. Consequently cannot have trademark significance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910087.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The role of the court in determining whether images are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0312p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 I This is a trademark infringement case brought by a Japanese maker of fishing tackle against American distributors of competing goods. The goods at issue are fishing line guides. Different guides have different fishing uses. Lighter guides are used on fly rods or fresh water spinning rods. While heavier guides are used on rods that require little casting or heavier bait. Strength in several dimensions is as important as flexibility. Aerodynamic when the rod is in motion. Fuji is a family run company. The President is the grandson of the founder. Four patents are here relevant and they are depicted. All of these patents teach a method of manufacture where the line guide is formed from a single piece of sheet metal. The guides at issue in this case are also made by stamping and forming. Figure 1a illustrates how Fuji's model N line guide is made from forming stamped metal. Fuji applied for and was granted seven design patents. Are illustrated in Figure 2. Examples of the allegedly infringing designs against which Fuji took action are not included in the record.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-7092a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Orfanedes was on the briefs. Doane was on the briefs. I. Background The key issue in the case is which party first used the SUNTECH trademark. Its application was granted in November. MSI discovered that Sunmatch was advertising SUN TECH tools in the United States and became concerned about Sunmatch's sales of private label tools in the U.S. The only affidavit MSI submitted did not raise a dispute over any material fact because it was not based upon the affiant's personal knowledge of the events surrounding the beginning of the relationship between the two companies. The court determined that Sunmatch owned the SUNTECH mark principally because it was the first to use it. (c) deciding that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1593.html">AL-SITE CORP. V. VSI INT'L, INC. (3/30/1999, NO. 97-1593)<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Stephen E. Of counsel was <U>Oren J. With him on the brief were <U>Robert S. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Richard L. Of counsel was <U>Myles G. Magnivision is the assignee of U.S. The jury further concluded that the Magnivision patents were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Would have been literally infringed by VSI's Version 2 hanger tag. Contends that the district court's claim construction was correct but challenges the jury's determinations for lack of substantial evidence to support a verdict.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1400.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52409B34E538D4B8882571FF00557AF9/$file/0455529.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1012.html">WAYMARK CORPORATION AND CARAVELLO FAMILY LP V. PORTA SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Kevin E. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E0673C81254FCC688256EE80057CC30/$file/0257148.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court determined that Nissan Motor's dilution suit was not barred by laches. That Nissan Computer's first commercial use of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0973p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1626.html">ILAN GOLAN (DOING BUSINESS AS GOLAN PRODUCTS) V. PINGEL<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brilliance is in the business of producing and selling audiobooks. The two editions are packaged and marketed differently. It is unclear how. Audio Adventures LLC (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043874p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both of which are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in California. Is the exclusive licensee of the FREEDOM CARD marks. 5 1 claims UTN brought against Chase.2 UTN asserted those claims in counterclaims it filed in response to Chase's declaratory judgment action. We will affirm.4
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513492.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we join four other circuits in holding that the legal standard is the same as for any other trademark infringement inquiry into good faith whether the alleged infringer intended to benefit from the good will associated with the holder of the mark and because there is no evidence in the record indicating that the Postal Service so intended. Was founded in 1985. Was granted U.S. The parties have stipulated that the mark is incontestable.1 Almost from its inception. ISA was a non exclusive licensee of the Postal Service. Between 1985 and 1997 there were a series of license agreements between the parties. The Postal Service licensed use of its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981653.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clapp</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0021p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision was made early on not to structure the business as a franchise because franchising would require too much on site monitoring of individual franchisees' operations. Tumblebus Inc. does not have a complete list of all persons who have purchased retrofitted buses. Informed Pate that two other persons were already operating in Lexington. Where Tumblebus Inc. was based. That she was confident in her customers' loyalty to Tumblebus Inc.1 In January 2002. Reminding Pate that she was not supposed to be operating in that area. Pate explained that she was having difficulty in obtaining customers in Elizabethtown and the surrounding areas. So the five [written agreements with geographic restrictions that were produced during discovery] were the five [she] had in writing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6007.htm">99-6007 -- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL LEAGUES INC. V. VERY MINOR LEAGUES INC. -- 07/28/2000<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5294A335AAD5EE2A88257203007AF2B1/$file/0435843.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cheese people explain their quarter century delay in taking action against Tillamook Country Smoker by contending that they are victims of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug12/03-51118-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
House of Vacuums is an independent vacuum cleaner Scott Fetzer sued sales and repair shop located in San Antonio. Repairs all types of vacuum cleaners. is not an authorized Kirby distributor or service center. Farmer neither signed nor returned the agreement but claims to have resolved the dispute informally through phone calls to Scott Fetzer No. 03 51118 3representatives. action. Scott Fetzer took no further version of that ad is the subject of the current litigation. ad begins with the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948700.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.1 Appellants and Cross Appellees. The two cases were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. is listed as a separate defendant in Case No. 93 CV 2938. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. 3 are involved in the restaurant business. Concluded that Defendant's rights were superior in Georgia. We remand the matter to the district court to determine if Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. The first such restaurant was opened in October 1989 in Winston Salem. We treat these separate entities as if they were one. 3 North Carolina. The LONE STAR CAFE mark covers both clothing items and The mark covering restaurant services was by a New York City nightclub operator. restaurant services. registered in 1981 Plaintiff's predecessor corporation purchased the LONE STAR CAFE mark from the nightclub in 1992. Which registration is now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1488.html">L.D. KICHLER V. DAVOIL<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel was <U>Lowell L. With him on the brief was <U>Max Ciccarelli</U>.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.L.L.C. were on brief. Plumb & Murray were on brief. Reasoning that the Union's claim failed to satisfy the Lanham Act's jurisdictional requirements because (1) the parties were not competing for the sale of commercial services. (2) Winship's admittedly unauthorized use of the mark was in connection with services offered by the markholder rather than services offered by the infringer. Is also a plaintiff. Two affiliates of Winship (Hillhaven Corp. and First Healthcare Corp.) are codefendants. The difference between the two types of marks is not relevant here. Thus we will apply case law involving either form. Is also postdated. Urges the reader to vote against unionization and warns that union membership will bring significant financial burdens. Accompanies this listing:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A97FBBA18D29793882570580054FC2D/$file/0316218.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that there are issues of material fact as to (1) whether the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7EF5B069AA425BC38825730D00579E8C/$file/0515170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3452.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiff complains that the defendant is passing off his (inferior) product as the plaintiff's. Here we have the converse case of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Sandra Edelman. The Board held that the opposition is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel arising from prior district court infringement litigation. The dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the PTO for further proceedings. Mayer/Berkshire states that it and its predecessor companies have used BERKSHIRE since 1906 in their trade name and since 1925 as a trademark in association with apparel including socks. The application with the remaining Class 18 goods was passed 04 1254 2 to publication. The Board suspended the opposition proceeding in Class 18 until the district court action was concluded. Have defendants infringed plaintiff's trademark. Is there a likelihood of confusion resulting from the use by defendants of the trademark and trade name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/711AF70C54478F6888256B9100030575/$file/0055147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the exclusive United States distributor of Karl Storz rigid endoscopes. Endoscopes are precision surgical instruments used in many types of minimally invasive surgical and diagnostic procedures. Since these claims are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6218.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are three related businesses that manufacture and distribute indoor tanning lotions. Is the exclusive distributor of Australian Gold. It is indoor tanning products. That are at issue in this lawsuit. <hr> distributors must agree to market. These agreements have generally prohibited distributors from selling Products over the internet or selling Products to anyone else who will sell them to the general public over the internet.(2) Plaintiffs enforce the integrity of these agreements by attempting to stem the flow of Products to businesses other than tanning salons. Have spent over $1 million on such efforts. Quality Tanning & Distributing LLC d/b/a/ United Domain Management are all businesses created by the Hatfields through which the Hatfields have resold Products over the internet. Because the Hatfields were aware that Plaintiffs objected to the sale of Products on the internet. By switching the original name of the business from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/995422.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have fostered the mistaken impression that Smirnoff vodka is made in Russia and is the same product that was produced in Russia and sold to the czar before the Russian Revolution. Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to present a case or controversy that was ripe for decision within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution and that. Even if the plaintiffs' claims were ripe. Perhaps the greatest recognition he received was being named the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E23FC5B9D324AC5888256ADB00077C8F/$file/9956068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Happy contractual relationships are all alike. Every unhappy contractual relationship is unhappy in its own way.1 In this case. Gemplus and Humetrix were poised on the threshold of a promising business opportunity. Garnett trans. 1933). 2 A Smart Card is a credit card sized microprocessor that stores data files. Guistini was a 45% shareholder in Inovaction S.A.R.L. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5106a.html">BULL S A V. COMER DOUGLAS B.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/01-16495.opn.html">INT'L COSMETICS EXCH., INC. V. GAPARDIS HEALTH & BEAUTY, INC. (8/26/2002, NO. 01-16495)<BR></A><BR>
The district court<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/92ED1DE1AB69E2FA88256E5A00707CFB/$file/9956068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Happy contractual relationships are all alike. Every unhappy contractual relationship is unhappy in its own way.1 In this case. Gemplus and Humetrix were poised on the threshold of a promising business opportunity. Garnett trans. 1933). 2 A Smart Card is a credit card sized microprocessor that stores data files. Guistini was a 45% shareholder in Inovaction S.A.R.L. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1565.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116495.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court1 found that the contract between ICE and CLM (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0368p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the defendants violated the ACPA by their registration of the domain name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4812-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dow Jones appeals also from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Each plaintiff is the originator of a widely known index. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2160.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP were on brief for appellees. Was founded by Ronald Pasqualino in 1990. As Safety Products was virtually insolvent. The trademark application was actively opposed by plaintiff appellee Danjaq. Ronald Pasqualino was not mentioned in the Agreement. Which was executed by Angelo as president of Safety Products. Subject to its reopening in the event the settlement was not consummated within sixty days. Danjaq contended that Ronald though neither a named party nor a signatory to the Settlement Agreement was so
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-16495.opn.html">INT'L COSMETICS EXCH., INC. V. GAPARDIS HEALTH & BEAUTY, INC. (8/26/2002, NO. 01-16495)<BR></A><BR>
The district court<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-4812-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dow Jones appeals also from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Each plaintiff is the originator of a widely known index. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-4126.man.html">CARNIVAL BRAND SEAFOOD CO. V. CARNIVAL BRANDS (9/3/1999, NO. 98-4126)<BR></A><BR>
Hi Seas executed the Hi Seas Assignment.</P> <P> Defendant CBI is a New Orleans. Louisiana company that is engaged in the business of selling prepared Creole or Cajun type food products. These products are available in grocery stores for retail purchase. Summary judgment was due to be granted only if the forecast of evidence before the district court showed that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party. Was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must show (1) that its mark has priority and (2) that the defendant's mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. <EM>Lone Star Steakhouse &. Any priority that CBSC claims over CBI with respect to the CARNIVAL mark must have been derived from one of CBSC's predecessors in interest. <EM>Cf. N. 3 (1998) (explaining that an assignee of a trademark steps into the shoes of the assignor and that a company may
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0393p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispute is over a series of toy vehicles produced by Lanard called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2671.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hahn LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. This is a case of first impression for this circuit on several issues under the Lanham Act. Was chartered in 1990 by the Rhode Island legislature as the workers' compensation insurer of last resort in the state.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-4126.man.html">CARNIVAL BRAND SEAFOOD CO. V. CARNIVAL BRANDS (9/3/1999, NO. 98-4126)<BR></A><BR>
Hi Seas executed the Hi Seas Assignment.</P> <P> Defendant CBI is a New Orleans. Louisiana company that is engaged in the business of selling prepared Creole or Cajun type food products. These products are available in grocery stores for retail purchase. Summary judgment was due to be granted only if the forecast of evidence before the district court showed that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party. Was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must show (1) that its mark has priority and (2) that the defendant's mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. <EM>Lone Star Steakhouse &. Any priority that CBSC claims over CBI with respect to the CARNIVAL mark must have been derived from one of CBSC's predecessors in interest. <EM>Cf. N. 3 (1998) (explaining that an assignee of a trademark steps into the shoes of the assignor and that a company may
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031309np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is a tale of one company's efforts to extend the terms of its contract with another company. There is no question that the integrated contract between the parties stipulated a four year term. Nor is there any question that Wastecorp. This case is easily resolved: Wastecorp. We are convinced that our intuition was correct and that the District Court's orders should be affirmed. I. BACKGROUND ITT is a multi billion dollar. Which ITT and its predecessors have used in association with industrial pumps since 1935. Wastecorp is a manufacturer of industrial pumps with annual sales of approximately $1 million.1 In 1993. Wastecorp would not have entered into the Agreement. Soja stated that the issue of renewability was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA755072A501C7DA88256DD4005D25CD/$file/0235845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1234.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief was Jess M. With him on the brief was Nancy C. Of counsel on the brief was Robert Lorenzo. Of counsel were Christina J. We affirm the decision of the Board. 1 DISCUSSION The definition of goods in a trademark registration is a mixed question of law and fact. 527 U.S. 150 (1999) (rulings of the PTO tribunals are reviewed in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act). Whereas
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8FEB0CC4B736A08988256EAC0059289D/$file/0316553.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an injunction. Whether an interlocutory order denying seizure is thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the district court's denial of a motion for an ex parte seizure order is neither an automatically appealable literal refusal of an injunction nor a practical denial of ultimate injunctive relief. All proceedings so far have been ex parte and filed under seal. The defendant is designated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1641.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1518r.html">JET, INC. V. SEWAGE AERATION SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Thomas H. Of counsel was <u>Caroline A. With him on the brief was <u>Edmund J. SAS was issued a federal registration. S use of AEROB A JET on home waste water treatment devices was likely to cause confusion with the JET and JET AERATION marks used on Jet
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1047.html">HERBKO INTERNATIONAL, INC., V. KAPPA BOOKS<BR></A><BR>
Line height:200%'>Kappa publishes a variety of paperback books.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/981902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Notwithstanding a consultant's report indicating that the name was the customers' least popular choice. Shortly after the line was introduced. Lean Cuisine is packaged in white boxes. This is superimposed on a red diagonal ribbon.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/235F5D82848130D1882573320059D86F/$file/0616380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Albertson's was the legal owner of the LUCKY mark for retail grocery services and products and rejected Grocery's claim that Albertson's abandoned the LUCKY mark through its publicly advertised announcement that LUCKY stores were converted to Albertson's stores after a company merger in late 1999. They are not separate tests but
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0439p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is unaffiliated with Audi. D'Amato alleges that when he asked if displaying the logos was permissible. Skal was not affiliated with Audi in any way.1 Id. at 650. These items were posted for sale in 2003. Audi already HAS a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1435.html">MIDWEST INDUSTRIES V. KARAVAN TRAILERS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were H. Of counsel was Curtis A. Of counsel on the brief was Don Cayen. Have joined Part II A of this opinion.<p> BRYSON. Holding that they are barred by federal patent law. We hold that we will apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts state law causes of action. Those decisions in which we have held that regional circuit law governs in resolving such issues. As is typically true of watercraft trailers. Midwest also alleged that Karavan's conduct violated Midwest's rights under the Iowa common law of trademarks.<p> Midwest is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Would interfere with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031896.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If it filed an application to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/97-1290.htm">97-1290 -- KING OF THE MOUNTAIN SPORTS INC. V. CHRYSLER CORP. -- 07/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Gothic lettering is horizontally oriented in one line and only the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/971950P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The first mark was registered in 1986. Some are now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. The BLOCKBUSTER marks are heavily advertised and promoted and are used on a wide variety of consumer products and services. Ingram owns a BLOCKBUSTER mark that was federally registered for fireworks sales in 1992. A BLOCKBUSTER FIREWORKS mark for which a federal registration application is pending. The district court denied Viacom summary judgment on its claims of trademark infringement because the evidence of likelihood of confusion was not conclusive. For reasons that will become apparent. It is essential to address first the FTDA's impact on a lawsuit commenced before enactment that seeks relief against on going conduct. If such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B7341C655098D9A882572BA0078F35E/$file/0555605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0F66373782583AF88256DFD00800C5E/$file/0016532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that Bumper was infringing Earthquake's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1240.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1202.html">EMERSON V. DAVOIL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031286p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties have indicated that the dispute between Houbigant and Fireman's Fund has been settled. That appeal is moot. 1 I. The Insureds were granted a license to manufacture and sell certain Houbigant fragrances and use the trademarks associated with them. The Insureds were required to manufacture. (4) indicating that the Chantilly fragrance was produced by the Insureds. The Insureds were covered by two policies issued by Federal: (1) the Commercial General Liability policy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2300.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> This is a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit under the Lanham Act. The plaintiff was acquired by Morgan Tires & Auto. States that expansion into New Mexico is imminent. Summary judgment is appropriate only when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033410P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) finding that Gateway's trademark registration was not limited to cow spots in the shape of a box. United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 1 Gateway's mark was entitled to protection under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Background Gateway is a corporation. Stretch Pets have an animal's head and an elastic body that can wrap around the edges of computer monitors. Each Stretch Pet has a tag hanging from its ear and a tag sewn into its seam that contains the trademark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8743F851198529A088256BAE007425D9/$file/0115973.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To whom the wine was sold. The 1989 agreement was drafted by Barcamerica's counsel and. (2) Barca's testimony that he relied on the reputation of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2009_015A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was a van the interior of which could be converted by the owner in about an hour from a mobile office to a camper. Vans of this sort are called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was descriptive and that it had not acquired secondary meaning. To obtain trademark protection for the mark LAWOFFICES.1 Plaintiff is the registrant of the domain Although the specific facts of this case invo lve the designation LawOffices.net. 1999) (noting that when a trademark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-3308.opn.html">MCDONALD'S CORP. V. ROBERTSON (7/28/1998, NO. 97-3308)<BR></A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized.<U></U></P> <P> On September 12. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973308.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature. (2) the equipment was not kept in good. The audit revealed that the walk in refrigerator contained several items with expired freshness codes that should have been removed and destroyed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-3308.opn.html">MCDONALD'S CORP. V. ROBERTSON (7/28/1998, NO. 97-3308)<BR></A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized.<U></U></P> <P> On September 12. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973308.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature. (2) the equipment was not kept in good. The audit revealed that the walk in refrigerator contained several items with expired freshness codes that should have been removed and destroyed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAwMjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0026-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1022.html">SUNRISE JEWELRY MFG. CORP. V. FRED S.A.,<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel were Janice Anne Sharp and Albert F. With him on the brief was Cameron C. The TTAB found that Sunrise's pleadings of fraud were legally insufficient. Because we conclude that the registration of an incontestable mark that is a product design may be cancelled if the mark is generic. We vacate the decision of the TTAB on this ground and remand the case for the Board to determine if Fred's mark is generic.</p> <p>BACKGROUND</p> <p>On February 27. Which was entered on April 19. Filed a complaint against a number of defendants in district court alleging infringement of Fred's mark.</p> <p>The cancellation proceeding was withdrawn on May 8. On the same date the withdrawal was filed. Fred's general manager stated that there were no proceedings involving the right to register the mark pending and not disposed of either in the PTO or in the courts. Alleging that Fred's statements in its incontestability declaration to the PTO were fraudulent. That the mark was generic. The TTAB noted that at the time the declaration was filed no challenge to the validity of the registration had been raised in the pending trademark infringement suit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1592.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to a jury. Which Softbelly's had abandoned in the district court and (though it is anyway too late) seeks halfheartedly to resuscitate on appeal. The issues at the trial were three. The first was whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAwMjYtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0026-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1241.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robin L. Of counsel on the brief were Juliana M. Of counsel was Charles E. That the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated because Go was not entitled to claim the priority date of an earlier application. Go argues that (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the patent claim because there were factual disputes as to whether the earlier patent application met the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. (2) prejudgment interest should have been awarded because the contract damages were liquidated. (3) the damages award should not have been reduced. Most of the bacteria are concentrated in the first 1.5 cm to 2 cm of the urethra. The '259 patent was issued from a 1985 continuation in part application that claimed the priority date of an application filed on September 12. 1979.1 The claims of the '259 patent recite the use of a stop member to limit the insertion of the sheath to either
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/042502P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Frosty Treats contends that because the ice cream truck in those games bears a clown graphic that it alleges is similar to the one on its ice cream trucks. Is labeled with its brand identifier. Frosty Treats asserts that the district court erred by finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and holding as a matter of law that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc5NDZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7946_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because (1) the challenged junior trademark is not confusingly similar to the senior mark. (2) there is no evidence of actual consumer confusion. (3) there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of defendants. Is the market leader for pre moistened bath tissue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7CDCB1F8A8992373882570930054C7DD/$file/0435229.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Idaho Potato Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BEBFCF2596C865C688256B5E005D99DD/$file/0035328.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mike Cohn appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on his claim that Petsmart infringes his trademark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1087.html">DUNCAN MCCOY V. MITSUBOSHI<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/022894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by the Washington Post Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company. Purdy1 from appropriating Internet domain names2 that incorporate and are confusingly similar to their trademarks and servicemarks. Purdy was later found in contempt and fined for violating the injunctions. I. Both the common law and Congress have provided protection to the holders of recognized trademarks to prevent others from appropriating or copying them and taking advantage of the owner's good will for their own benefit. One legislative purpose of that act was to ensure that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/012852P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy Trustee to recover damages from certain judgment creditors for violating the automatic stay. We upheld a ruling that Defendants had violated the automatic stay but concluded that the Trustee's proper remedy was limited to compensatory damages and remanded for a In Re: Just Brakes Corporate Systems. The bankruptcy court awarded the Trustee the proceeds at issue without determining whether the underlying asset was part of the bankruptcy estate. We conclude the Trustee established that the asset in question was part of the bankruptcy estate. A corporation whose president was a shareholder and director of Just Brakes. Defendants sued to have the conveyance set aside as fraudulent to Just Brakes creditors. The foreclosure sale was scheduled for October 15. The trademark was sold for $105. Defendants were paid the proceeds. We concluded the Trustee is limited to compensatory relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The value of the trademark was not necessarily an appropriate compensatory remedy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep30/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1540.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Douglas A. With him on the brief were Albin F. Of counsel was Nancy C. The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on June 8. We vacate the Board's ruling that the PTO met its burden of proving that the phrase SOCIETY FOR </p> <p>REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE was generic as based on the application of an incorrect legal test that assumed the genericness of a phrase as a whole based solely on proof of the genericness of its individual terms. We remand for a decision of the Board under the correct legal test as detailed below.</p> <p>BACKGROUND</p> <p>The Society is an association whose primary purpose is to advance the interests of the reproductive medicine field by providing what it describes as ". Nearly all of its members are doctors working as specialists in reproductive medicine. Most of the rest are professors. The desired mark was chiefly geographically descriptive in violation of section 2(e)(2) of the Lanham Act. The Examining Attorney refused registration on the grounds that a portion of the mark SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE was so highly descriptive that ".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9266_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Savin Corporation argues that the District Court erred in holding that (i) the FTDA requires a plaintiff to demonstrate evidence of actual dilution even where the court finds that the at issue marks are identical. (ii) the standard for dilution under New York General Business Law § 360 l is the same as the standard for dilution under the FTDA. (iii) there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants appellees' use of certain at issue marks creates a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff appellant's marks. Which are essentially undisputed. Are derived primarily from the District Court's findings of fact. Was founded in 1959 and has its principal place of business in Stamford. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of marketing. Plaintiff's products are sold through seventeen company owned branches consisting of over sixty sales and service offices and over 250 trained dealers throughout the United States. Plaintiff's largest customers are in the government. Plaintiff's ownership of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/962078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants are judgment creditors of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor. 717 in damages for appellants' willful violation of the automatic stay. violated the automatic stay but conclude that the damage award was an improper remedy and therefore reverse. 2 I. The foreclosure sale was cancelled. The court observed that Just Brakes's claim to avoid its pre petition assignment of the trademark to FGR
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0221p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the District Court that there is no likelihood of confusion
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were John M. It is merely descriptive. The word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwODQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5084-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is an area of the law well worked over But because the rules governing it have not recently been set out. OSA contends the agreement was never properly executed The United States District Court and is therefore unenforceable. for the District of Connecticut (Covello. Origin of the Dispute Omega Engineering is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Stamford. OSA is a Swiss corporation that manufactures and markets watches. A global settlement agreement was reached in 1994 (1994 Agreement) that set forth the parties' respective rights to the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90F2DDEED394643288256BA40076BCE5/$file/0056012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Japan Telecom is a California corporation. Japan Telecom America is the United States subsidiary of Japan Telecom Company. Unclean Hands [1]
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1098.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith & Cohen were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould was on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation which has developed and patented a line of specialized
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug26/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No registration is for the word PETRO alone. The PETRO mark is almost always displayed in white letters with a green rectangular background. Was placed on the Principal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/995326.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001918.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bush
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/971018P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district judge1 erred in denying their motion to increase the amount of the bond 3M was required to deposit with the District Court. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 3M is a Delaware corporation based in St. Which is done primarily at a facility in Brownwood. The reflective material is manufactured in large rolls and then is subjected to an extensive quality control process. Surplus or inadequate reflective material is either sold or discarded in a landfill. James Rauh is an officer and 40% shareholder in Rauh Rubber. Rauh Rubber and GAIA began to sell them to 3M's customers at lower prices than 3M was offering for its own reflective material. When 3M learned that Rauh Rubber and GAIA were selling these materials. Were not successful. 3M filed a complaint with the District Court on March 3. The District Court held that 3M is unlikely to prevail in a trial on the merits on its claim that an express or an implied contract existed between 3M and the Rauh defendants obligating the Rauh defendants not to resell the reflective material bought from 3M.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982228.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case requires us to determine under what circumstances the configuration of a product can constitute inherently distinctive trade dress that is protectable under federal law. Because we conclude that a product's configuration qualifies as inherently distinctive trade dress if it is capable of functioning as a designator of an individual source of the product. The parties' roles were reversed: SanGiacomo sued Ashley charging that it had infringed the trade dress of SanGiacomo's bedroom furniture and seeking a declaratory judgment that a design patent obtained by Ashley was invalid as a matter of law. The design and overall appearance of the Sommerset suite were unique and unlike any other bedroom furniture ever sold. Although these individual features have been used in other bedroom suites. Another expert opined that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2058.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that although Sullivan's mark is entitled to protection. Sixteen participants are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1290.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Savrann and Burns & Levinson were on brief for appellant. With whom Cesari and McKenna were on brief for appellee. Appellant contended that appellee's name was confusingly similar to its own. Would mislead the public into thinking that Boston Beer Works' products or services originated or were associated with those of The Boston Beer Company. Were not entitled to trademark protection. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Appellant is a beer manufacturer. The Pittsburgh facility was independently owned. Appellant's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2388.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/013503P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Demanding that it refrain from using the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/001964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action under the Lanham Act and state law to determine which party has the superior right to use the service mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-4153.man.html">FREHLING ENTERPRISES V. INT'L SELECT GROUP (10/18/1999, NO. 98-4153)<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a servicemark infringement case. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTE0OTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-1499_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. He also challenges the constitutionality of the federal statute requiring states to have a federally mandated scheme for licensing wholesale drug distributors engaged in interstate commerce. He contends that his sentence was impermissibly enhanced based on misinterpretations of the Guidelines and on facts not found by the jury. That he is entitled to be resentenced in any event because the Guidelines. Are unconstitutional. The only FDA approved distributor of Eldepryl in the United States was Somerset Pharmaceuticals. The only FDA approved distributor of Pergonal and Metrodin in the United States was Serono Labs USA. Metrodin distributed in the United States by these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 companies were manufactured and packaged outside the United States in compliance with FDA standards. Of which three are relevant here. The law forbids distribution in interstate commerce of drugs that are misbranded. Prescription drugs are subject to the general federal statutory prohibition of trafficking in counterfeit goods.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F552D4DFDE50F88B8825732A007F4367/$file/0555627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's entry of summary judgment in Jada's favor as to those claims is reversed. The district court's entry of summary judgment as to those claims in favor of Jada is also reversed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jada Toys is a California corporation that specializes in the distribution and sale of miniature diecast toy cars. These vehicles are scale model replicas of actual vehicles. The trademark was issued by and registered with the U.S. Mattel is also a toy company. Among its many lines of toys is its familiar HOT WHEELS miniature vehicle brand. Were not related to its HOT RIGZ mark. Among the counterclaims were allegations that Jada's HOT RIGZ mark infringed on Mattel's HOT WHEELS mark.1 Mattel also counterclaimed for copyright infringement and dilution. STANDARD OF REVIEW The review of a grant of summary judgment as to an infringement claim is de novo. . . . there are any genuine issues of material fact. Summary judgment is generally disfavored in the trademark arena.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983586P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2498_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is a white. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred's extended finger on his right hand. Is a white. Two of Fartman's seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred. Was not happy when Novelty. Argues that Illinois's punitive damages remedy for unfair competition is preempted by federal law. Contends that the attorneys' fees awarded by the district court should have been capped according to Tekky's contingent fee arrangement with its attorneys. It turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls. It is quite lucrative. Fred was just the beginning. Is owned by Todd Green. Green testified that he might have photographed Fred since
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971942.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It appeals the district court's entry of an injunction that is duplicative of the injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. We consider that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. The parties settled that civil action by entering a detailed stipulated judgment which was entered as an 2 order by that district court on October 17.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1197.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Susan J. With him on the brief were <U>Nancy C. Of counsel was <U>John M. Because the mark is descriptive of the relevant services. It claimed that the proposed mark is inherently distinctive. That it acquired distinctiveness and was registerable pursuant to section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. Portion of the mark is depicted with broken lines to indicate that ". The area code will change". Isler inferred that people who called on these lines were attempting to reach Dial A Mattress. Were either unfamiliar with the correct spelling of ". Application because the mark is generic for the relevant services and therefore unregisterable. The examiner found that even if it is not generic. It is ". Because there was no dispute that the (888) toll free area code designation is devoid of source indicating significance. Is the legal equivalent of the word ". Is generic for the identified service. Is generic.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1113.html">O-M BREAD V. U.S. OLYMPIC COMM.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-4153.man.html">FREHLING ENTERPRISES V. INT'L SELECT GROUP (10/18/1999, NO. 98-4153)<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a servicemark infringement case. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053463P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schwan's is the second largest producer and supplier of frozen pizzas in the United States. The pizza's crust is parbaked in a conveyor oven lined with ceramic tiles. The crust is then topped with sauce. Kraft is the largest producer and supplier of frozen pizzas in the country. Concluding that Brick Oven did not have a clearly defined meaning to consumers. Concluding that Brick Oven is a generic term used to describe both frozen pizza and pizza generally. Schwan's described Brick Oven pizza as a style of pizza that appears to have been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4248.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine if Plaintiff has raised a genuine factual issue as to whether Defendant's alleged infringement was willful. Our appellate jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Counsel issued an opinion letter to Hyundai stating that the use and registration of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1520.html">HORPHAG V. CONSAC INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0241p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Principally because TGI's use of its mark is in an industry far removed from that of Kellogg. Is the largest producer of breakfast cereal in the world. Toucan Sam is an anthropomorphic cartoon toucan. He is short and stout and walks upright. He is nearly always smiling with a pleasant and cheery demeanor. Kellogg is the holder of five federally registered Toucan Sam marks at issue in this case. The first was registered on August 18. As reproduced below: The second mark was registered March 20. Pointing his left index finger upward: The third mark is for the word mark. This mark was registered on June 18. Is a shaded drawing of Toucan Sam flying. The USPTO was known as the United States Patent Office. Is essentially the same drawing as in the fourth mark. GolfBird is always seen perched upon a golf iron as if it were a tree branch. Her variable body coloring: Together the five registrations indicate that Kellogg's marks are for use in the breakfast cereal industry. TGI is a manufacturer of golf equipment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-5161.htm">97-5161 -- BISHOP V. EQUINOX INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR>
The district court determined that the circumstances of the case were exceptional. Both parties are dissatisfied with the result. Bishop contends that he is entitled to an accounting of profits. That the attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion. Bishop discovered that Equinox was marketing a dietary supplement under the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/993609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
By competing Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. To whom the case was assigned with the consent of the parties. I. Background HBA is a nonprofit organization representing the home building industry in metropolitan St. The HBA shows are held at the St. L&L is a recently started Minnesota company that promotes home shows across the country. L&L's show was held at the Convention Center. The 1997 L&L show was small. Responding to complaints from visitors who attended L&L's first show thinking it was the more substantial HBA event. Convention Center officials told L&L that 2 advertising for any future shows would have to identify L&L as the sponsor to prevent public confusion. Some visitors to the January 1998 show testified that they attended under the mistaken belief it was an HBA event. The district court found that HBA's home shows have acquired secondary meaning in the St.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1011.html">LAMPI CORPORATION V. AMERICAN POWER PRODUCTS, INC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief were <u>G. Which is drawn to a miniature. The district court also concluded that the claims were not invalid. 227 patent is a small. Connecting element which is shaped into a housing which supports a fluorescent lamp tube 5.". The patent further explains:</p> <dir> <dir> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031108.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/952912P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is located in the eastern region of the Iron Range. in the western Iron Range.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1897.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that Chattanoga's trademark was 2 Nos. 01 1897. The district court found that Chattanoga's trademark infringement claims were barred under the doctrine of laches and that Michael Jordan could not be held liable in his personal capacity. Chattanoga claims to have continuously used the mark JORDAN to identify its Jordan Blouse Division products. Inc. and Michael Jordan Nike was established in 1971 and is one of the world's leading sports and fitness companies. There are apparel products identified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E34876CC8ACB973F88256E5A00707AA1/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDA7E49995BC06D888256A15005FA185/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/023647.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Adderall is a central nervous system stimulant used in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) available only by prescription 3 and dispensed to patients in pharmacy vials labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1977.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a federal statute for the protection of franchised dealers and distributors of gasoline and other petroleum projects. The ostensible theory of such statutes (ostensible because it is unclear why the intended beneficiaries could not obtain similar protection by contractual negotiation) is that a franchised dealer in effect invests in the franchisor's trademarks and as a result creates goodwill for the franchisor which the latter might on occasion be tempted to appropriate by terminating the franchisee. Of which the one pertinent to this case is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1297.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1196.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The trademark examiner ruled that the mark was registrable. This statute is not a pleaded ground in the opposition and it has not been so considered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1860p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0035p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trademark case. (3) the district court had jurisdiction and should have ordered the PTO to dismiss the pending opposition. (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the circumstances of the case were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1173.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Cynthia Johnson Walden and Amy L. With him on the brief were Cynthia C. Because the Board correctly determined that the appeal was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Bose further stated in its response to an office action that the proposed mark is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-16189.opn.html">CUMULUS MEDIA, INC. V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-16189)<BR></A><BR>
At issue is whether Clear Channel has infringed the rights of Cumulus Media. We can find no error in the entry of the preliminary injunction and accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1271.html">ROSCO, INC V. MIRROR LITE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-16189.opn.html">CUMULUS MEDIA, INC. V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-16189)<BR></A><BR>
At issue is whether Clear Channel has infringed the rights of Cumulus Media. We can find no error in the entry of the preliminary injunction and accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1258.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5027a.html">CHECKERS DRIVE IN V. CMSNR PATENTS & TRD<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16F7DE32697B308888256FF6007993BA/$file/0217064.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because no material issue of fact was raised reflecting confusion between the marks. We also hold that the discovery rulings were well within the bounds of the court's discretion. Approximately thirty to fifty percent of Plaintiff's wares are emblazoned with the Surfvivor mark alone. Surfvivor goods are primarily sold to Hawaiian consumers through the local university. The Survivor mark is emblazoned on a wide range of consumer merchandise. Is often accompanied by the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1050.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Miriam D. Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>William LaMarca</u> and <u>Cynthia C. The Coors Brewing Company seeks to register the words Blue Moon and an associated design for a brand of beer.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The examining attorney in the Patent and Trademark Office rejected Coors application on the ground that the mark is likely to be confused with the registered mark Blue Moon and de
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/995117.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CNIS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Commerce Bancorp. We will reverse.1 I. By the time this litigation was commenced. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and review the District Court's factual findings for clear error. We are left with a definite and firm conviction that mistake has been committed. Neither CIA nor CBI were aware that anyone believed that the companies were business affiliates of each other. The application was granted. The District Court first determined that CBI's rights in the Commerce mark were senior to those of CIA. The Court found that CIA's use of the Commerce mark in 1983 was likely to create confusion. Because reasonable consumers dealing with CIA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/987552.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question is whether the advertising converts the theft into
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0192n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 2 1 Appellees Joanne Smart and Roberta Kurtz are the owners of Appellee Black & Red. That genuine issues of material fact remained that should have precluded summary judgment. Inc. was planning to sell. Appellant's motion was granted and the district court entered a judgment imposing a permanent injunction against Appellees in an order entered August 13. A bench trial commenced on the question of whether the infringement was willful. The parties were put on notice by the district court that it was contemplating reconsideration of its August 13. 2002 order may have been erroneous and providing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3618_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Harley is universally recognized as a manufacturer of high quality motorcycles. The Federal Patent and Trademark Office has issued Harley the registered trademarks
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFCE724C652ECD12882572E2007E583B/$file/0656774.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 5996 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH v. I. BACKGROUND This is the second time in four years that trademark litigation between these parties has reached this forum. When Moose Creek filed a trademark infringement action alleging that Abercrombie's Silhouette Moose Logo was confusingly similar to Moose Creek's moose marks. Moose Creek sought but was denied a preliminary injunction against Abercrombie's use of its logo. Reversal is appropriate only if the district court based its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous legal principles.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1140.html">TBC CORPORATION V. HOLSA, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1219.html">THE HOOVER COMPANY V. ROYAL APPLIANCE MG. CO.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Patrick R. S mark was likely to cause confusion with Hoover
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1129.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992255.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 7 the references to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971032.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Tommy Larsen is a designer of products of functional art. Tommy Larsen manufactures and distributes his products through Tommy Larsen AS.1 Terk is a small. The CD 25 is 1 When this lawsuit was filed. Tommy Larsen AS was a Danish entity referred to by the denomination
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1191.html">RIVARD V. LINVILLE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952877P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Labatt Limited and its associated companies (Labatt) are brewers and distributors of beer. Including an ice beer of its own. brewed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0001p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Saltiel and Hidrofiltros have filed a complaint alleging that Rexair breached the settlement agreement by filing a trademark infringement lawsuit in a Portuguese court against an individual who is allegedly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0459n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2304.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His fingerprints are all over the state's history for the last half of the 20th century. Where were you born and raised?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1432.html">ON-LINE CARELINE, INC. V. AMERICA ONLINE, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Kristin Jordan Harkins</u>.</p> <u> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1464.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the ground that there was no likelihood of confusion. BACKGROUND The determination of likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on underlying facts. We give plenary review to the Board's legal conclusion that confusion is not likely.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981028.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Defendant RAMMAX is a small German manufacturer of trench roller compaction machines used in the construction industry. SeaRoy was indebted to RAMMAX for approximately $1.8 million. Was 3 essentially a duplicate of the RAMMAX model previously distributed by Sea Roy. RAMMAX and other defendants were added by amended complaint alleging conspiracy and other causes of action. Defendants other than RAMMAX and Multiquip were previously dismissed and did not appear as parties to the appeal. The only issues to reach the jury were the defendants' issues of piercing the corporate veil. The Court must consider all the pleadings and allegations in a light most favorable to the non moving party and decide whether there is a genuine issue of material fact to be submitted to the trier of fact. This Court will review de novo the issues as to summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs concede that RAMMAX is a registered trademark and that registration establishes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A31B9ADAD5C7C56882572EC000096D9/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577. Neither party in that case raised the question of whether state law counts as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2083_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Pine Tar Incident It's undisputed: George Brett was a great baseball player. Was richly deserved. Many who love baseball will always think of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021787.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The distinctive lettering used in the proposed mark included a large A which was extended to underline the other letters. All of which were upper case except for the letter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034428.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Evidence at Farmer's home confirmed that Farmer was purchasing blank t shirts and sweatshirts manufactured for companies like Nike and Hilfiger. Farmer contends that the search warrant of his home was based on stale information. Or Reebok are actually produced by independent mills or factories. Then Nike's trademark is affixed to the shirt either at the original mill or at a separate facility. Some shirts will not meet Nike's specifications. The shirts that have manufacturing flaws are classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1389.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were John M. Because the Board's finding that Slokevage's trade dress was product design and thus could not be inherently distinctive. That the trade dress was not unitary are supported by substantial evidence. Which is located on the rear of various garments. Is depicted below: Although Slokevage currently seeks to register a mark for the overall configuration of her design. The trademark examiner initially refused registration of the proposed mark on the ground that it constituted a clothing configuration that is not inherently distinctive. She argued that the trade dress was inherently distinctive. Finally the examiner found that the configuration is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1447.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were John M. The Board held the mark was either generic or merely descriptive and without secondary meaning. This court vacates the Board's determination that the mark is generic. The examining attorney initially denied registration on the ground that the proposed mark was merely descriptive. This time finding that the mark was generic for the specified goods and services without any acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). The Board affirmed the PTO's rejection on the ground that STEELBUILDING.COM is generic for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1548.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Michael B. Patent and trademark infringement. 1 The complaint in this case is ninety five pages long. At issue here is McZeal's allegation that Sprint Nextel infringes his service mark INTERNATIONAL WALKIE TALKIE®. 2 He similarly contends that Sprint Nextel infringes U.S. The trial court conducted a hearing shortly after the complaint was filed. The remaining counts of the complaint were not addressed at the trial level. McZeal made clear that the INTERNATIONAL WALKIE TALKIE® mark was at issue. Contrary to his assertions in his Reply brief:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1676.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Evans</SPAN> were on the brief. PC</SPAN> were on the brief. Flynn is an electrical engineer and robotics scientist who wrote a book with a colleague. The book was published in 1993 by Jones &. The book was a great success. Hoping to have the revised edition published by the next spring. Asking if she was amenable to the proposed revision with Seiger's assistance. That is. We are pleased that you have agreed to our suggestion regarding the 2d edition of Mobile Robots. We will be forwarding a contract to you soon for the signature.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1407.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Charles M. With him on the brief were <u>John M. The Board concluded that the mark was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Board applied an outdated standard in its analysis under § 1052(e)(3). The PTO issued a notice of publication.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The mark was published for opposition on September 29. 1998.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>No opposition was ever filed.</p> <p class=MsoFootnoteText style='text indent:.5in. Concluding that the mark was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Applicant filed a timely notice for reconsideration with the PTO and a notice of appeal to the Board in November 2000.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>After the PTO refused to reconsider its decision. The Board upheld the PTO s refusal to register applicant s mark and concluded that the mark was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B6B2C7FDCD2D56488256A5E0056BCD2/$file/9917294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must address whether Clicks' claimed trade dress was nonfunctional. Whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two establishments. Because there are disputed issues of material fact on each of these three questions. Sometime after the two Clicks facilities were already in existence. Was ostensibly involved in the design of Sixshooters both before and after he left Clicks. Clicks presented evidence that Chester and others affiliated with Sixshooters visited Clicks and engaged in detailed inspection and measuring of Clicks' interior features while the design of Sixshooters was being formulated. Clicks also claims that Sixshooters was built in the path of Clicks' planned expansion. 6737 In April 1997 Clicks filed suit under the Lanham Act. Various electrical details as well as air conditioning features to the extent they are part of the look. We must determine whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law and whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. It is well settled that restaurants and similar establishments may have a total visual appearance that constitutes protectable trade dress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Bank was founded in 1887 under the name Economy Federal. Both marks are used in conjunction with the Bank's characteristic wheat emblem. HHF is an Illinois corporation in the mortgage lending service business.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995614.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from orders enter ed by the District Court after a trial concerning the right to use the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-14063.man.html">SCARBROUGH V. MYLES (3/29/2001, NO. 00-14063)<BR></A><BR>
Which were in proximity to other booths selling goods with unauthorized trademarks. Was sufficient probable cause for their arrests. The other arrestees were transported to Mobile Police Headquarters and then to Mobile Metro Jail. They were released that night.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. That she was ABPN certified. The court denied relief because it believed she was unlikely to infringe in the future. While the case is close. I. BACKGROUND The facts are largely undisputed. ABPN is a non profit Illinois corporation that certifies psychiatrists and neurologists as specialists qualified in their respective fields.1 ABPN secured and owns a federal registration for the mark:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1525.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellant. Brooks was on brief for appellees. Since the appeal is from an order granting a motion to dismiss. Is a Massachusetts corporation based in Peabody. Defendant appellees are Pioneer Health Care. The Pioneer companies are Massachusetts corporations based in West Springfield and their names are recorded with the Massachusetts state secretary under Mass. At some point it came to the attention of the Pioneer companies that PHC was using the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-14063.man.html">SCARBROUGH V. MYLES (3/29/2001, NO. 00-14063)<BR></A><BR>
Which were in proximity to other booths selling goods with unauthorized trademarks. Was sufficient probable cause for their arrests. The other arrestees were transported to Mobile Police Headquarters and then to Mobile Metro Jail. They were released that night.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2704.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Honeywell's model (which it calls
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1123.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were <u>Ethan Horwitz</u> and <u>Karin Segall</u>.</p> <u> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/051999P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background Leslie Davis is the founder and president of an environmental advocacy organization called Earth Protector. He was thwarted by a fast thinking. Teenager who was in a family of superheroes. Because the determination in this case was made at the summary judgment stage. Analysis The Lanham Act prohibits the use of a mark in connection with goods or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). The lawsuit underlying this appeal is not a typical trademark case because the appellees did not affix the appellants' word mark to goods or use it to promote products or services. Whether the appellees' use of the mark is protected by the First Amendment is considered separately from the question of whether the appellees' use of the mark creates a likelihood of confusion. Factual disputes regarding a single factor are insufficient to support the reversal of summary judgment unless they tilt the entire balance in favor of such a finding.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014063.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were in proximity to other booths selling goods with unauthorized trademarks. Was sufficient probable cause This case originally was filed in the Circuit Court of Mobile County and was removed to federal court for the Southern District of Alabama.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0D80810913440D88256E5A00707B6B/$file/9917294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must address whether Clicks' claimed trade dress was nonfunctional. Whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two establishments. Because there are disputed issues of material fact on each of these three questions. Sometime after the two Clicks facilities were already in existence. Was ostensibly involved in the design of Sixshooters both before and after he left Clicks. Clicks presented evidence that Chester and others affiliated with Sixshooters visited Clicks and engaged in detailed inspection and measuring of Clicks' interior features while the design of Sixshooters was being formulated. Clicks also claims that Sixshooters was built in the path of Clicks' planned expansion. 6737 In April 1997 Clicks filed suit under the Lanham Act. Various electrical details as well as air conditioning features to the extent they are part of the look. We must determine whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law and whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. It is well settled that restaurants and similar establishments may have a total visual appearance that constitutes protectable trade dress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1544.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AutoZone argued that the agreement could not be performed within a year and was therefore void under the Colorado statute of frauds. 113 (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As we have noted. Unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith: (a) Every agreement that by the terms is not to be performed within one year after the making thereof. Because the alleged agreement was not in writing. The agreement was void under 38 10 112(1)(a). Is an oral agreement void when: (1) the agreement contemplates <hr> performance for a definite period of more than one year but (2) allows the party to be charged an option to terminate the agreement by a certain date less than a year from the making of the agreement and when (3) the party to be charged has not exercised that option to terminate the agreement?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-3246.wpd.html">FIRST SAVINGS BANK V. FIRST BANK SYS.<BR></A><BR>
(2) that FirstBank was. Further hold that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the FirstBank mark is confusingly similar to the 1971 federal registration
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014063.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were in proximity to other booths selling goods with unauthorized trademarks. Was sufficient probable cause for their arrests. The other arrestees were transported to Mobile Police This case originally was filed in the Circuit Court of Mobile County and was removed to federal court for the Southern District of Alabama.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/952886P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a products liability matter. Who are the recipients of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants. Seek to impose liability upon The Dow Chemical Company (Dow Chemical) for injuries alleged to have been caused by the implants. The pretrial proceedings in these various personal injury actions were consolidated in the District of Minnesota by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (1994). A TMJ implant is a device 1 Plaintiffs appeal the final order of the We granting summary judgment in favor of Dow Chemical. that is surgically inserted to replace an improperly functioning TMJ. Plaintiffs assert that Dow Chemical is liable because of its The Honorable Paul A. All nonbreast implant claims pending against Dow Corning have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Among Dow Chemical's services were approximately a dozen limited toxicology tests performed on a variety of silicone compounds from 1943 through the early 1970s. used safely as a medical implant.3 Three Dow Chemical scientists.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981039.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Refrain from infringing the disputed trademarks
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1153.html">METROTRAFFIC V. SHADOW NETWORK<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/971114P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case ultimately was dismissed. The License Agreement was revised by an August 5. Provided prior written notice to Concept was given. Concept was unable to redeem the substitute debenture. Equitable forfeiture was granted on December 19. Each of which is challenged by Klipsch on appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002509.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/013411up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
D.C. 20036 5339 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction. Because the decision to enter a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We will reverse such a decision
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4276.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The preliminary injunction was issued without a hearing and Equitrac had to place language on its web page to remedy violations of the Lanham Act. I. BACKGROUND Promatek and Equitrac are competitors in selling costrecovery equipment. The district 1 Metatags are HTML [HyperText Markup Language] code intended to describe the contents of the web site. There are different types of metatags. Those of principal concern to us are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1462.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/0141662.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Providence Washington Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1602.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. Which affirmed the PTO s refusal to register as a trademark Pacer s adhesive container cap design on the ground that the design was not inherently distinctive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>In re Pacer Tech.</u>. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Board s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Refused to register Pacer s application on the basis that the adhesive container cap was not inherently distinctive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>To address the refusal. Pacer submitted five affidavits of consumers stating that Pacer s container cap design was a source identifier of Pacer s product.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Nonetheless. The examining attorney maintained his refusal to register the adhesive container cap because it was not inherently distinctive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>As support. The examining attorney referred to the cover pages of eleven United States Design Patents showing drawings of various adhesive container caps.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The container caps in these design patents all have a crown.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1041.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. On the ground that the term is merely descriptive. Because we conclude that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not otherwise legally erroneous. If promotional materials were unavailable. It is presumed that the applicant's `water and wastewater filters' are used in dual sand filtration systems.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021112.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. A Virginia corporation that was bought out after the commencement of this action. Is the sole registry for .com domain names. Is a subsidiary of Shanghai Maya. Which was licensed to Shanghai Maya. Wang refused and appears to have transferred ownership of the domain name to Maya HK in October or November 2000. Maya HK and Shanghai Maya claim that they have no connections to the United States except their use of NSI's (now VeriSign GRS's) registry. Jurisdiction was asserted under the in rem provisions of the ACPA. Which is part of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(a). The court explained first that a plaintiff asserting in rem jurisdiction did not have to demonstrate that the defendant had minimum contacts with the forum. The court held that the statute explicitly allows in rem suits to be brought where the registry for the domain name is located. Is in the Eastern District of Virginia. (3) that Maya HK's use of the mark was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1160.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John M. I The facts of this case are straightforward. The Office further informed Star Fruits that to the extent Star Fruits did not have or could not readily obtain the required information. Star Fruits declined to provide the required information on the grounds that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/002542P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) notified B&B that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR>
We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1599.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Ronald James Campione. Approximately ninety five percent of its clients are pharmaceutical companies. The remaining clients are biotechnology companies and medical associations. The board found that M2 Communications' mark is limited to use on goods in the pharmaceutical and medical fields. M2 Communications is entitled to a registration for them. 05 1599 2 clients are in those fields. The board concluded that any overlap between the parties' prospective purchasers or channels of trade is de minimis. The board found that M2 Communications' goods were not explicitly encompassed by the scope of goods identified in M2 Software's registration. It found that the parties' goods were not related. Paramount to this case is the industry specific focus of the parties' claimed goods. The board concluded that because the claimed industries are distinct and separate. Are different goods. The board found that confusion is not likely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). The PTO may refuse to register a trademark that is so similar to a registered mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054321p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/952260P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Insty*Bit Minnesota. is a Minnesota Background corporation located in Minneapolis. It is undisputed. 946) was subsequently issued on March 21. Poly Tech informed Insty*Bit that it was adding its own brand of quick release drills and accessories. Is whether the record. Shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Where the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual. Summary judgment is Crain v. The trade dress of a product is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051815np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2006) OPINION OF THE COURT * This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Roth. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.§46(d). We will affirm the judgment. Because the facts of this case are familiar to the parties. We will summarize them. Healthcare Advocates was not successful. Was formed in November 2001 and began using the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 DaimlerChrysler is the registered owner of the trademarks and service marks MERCEDES and MERCEDES BENZ (collectively. MercedesBenz USA is the exclusive licensee of the Marks in the United States. One possible alphanumeric translation of which is 1 800 MERCEDES. He believes that the use of the phone number was a key component in reviving what had otherwise been a moribund dealership. Mercedes was forced The Mercedes Benz Communications Monitoring Service. MBZ is located in Owatonna and is an independent telecommunications company that specializes in the use of vanity phone numbers. Any call made to 1 800 MERCEDES originating in a contracted for area code is automatically rerouted to the appropriate dealership. Any call originating from an area code not covered by a licensing agreement terminates at the MBZ office and is processed by MBZ personnel. The following description is a concrete example of how MBZ's licensing system works. Any call made to 1 800 MERCEDES from the aforementioned area codes is automatically routed to House.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969157.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Inc. is a distributor of CHG's products. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market. The district court's disposal of Kason's non Lanham Act claims is a bit unclear.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-7162a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Norm D. With him on the brief was Walter Echo Hawk. Vieth were on the brief for amicus curiae InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington in support of appellants. With him 2 on the brief were Marc E. Holding that the TTAB should have found the Native Americans' petition barred by laches and that in any event the TTAB's cancellation decision was unsupported by substantial evidence. Provides that if a 3 mark is registered in violation of section 1052(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1055.html">YOUNG V. AGB CORP.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/983802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the district court's2 order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. (3) not deciding the question of whether Sbemco's trademark infringement claim constituted an advertising injury for which the Policy would have provided coverage. I. Background Callas was sued in an underlying action by its contractual business partner. The parties do not contest that the Policy was in effect during the time period of the alleged breach of contract. The Policy contains the following pertinent provisions as it relates to advertising injuries:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0744-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That copyright infringement was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032310.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ESCOLASTICA.COM Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: In this trademark infringement case we must decide whether the domain names
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5MDctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2907-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: When faced with the claim that two products are confusingly similar. A person's natural reaction is to place the two products side by side. To ascertain how comparable the two goods are. This process of simultaneous observation is. The ultimate conclusion as to whether a substantial number of consumers are likely to be confused by the similarities must be reached with a focus on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Where products in the relevant market are not typically displayed in the same locations. Centering on whether they are likely to be distinguished when viewed simultaneously is incorrect. Will result in a faulty likelihood of confusion analysis. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Appellant Louis Vuitton Malletier (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/991299O.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2000) ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on April 28. Para. 1 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR>
We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001032.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FIBER TECH MEDICAL Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellant Karl Storz Endoscopy America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0149p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WITT hired away several of ATC's other employees and created a transmission parts catalog that was almost identical to the ATC catalog. On which Hester had worked while he was with * The Honorable Donald E. I There are three areas of dispute between ATC and the Appellees: (1) the relationship between ATC and Kenny Hester. Produced a flyer indicating that WITT was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0310p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ford was unaware that Catalanotte had registered the domain name FORDWORLD.COM until October 27. Catalanotte's e mail message stated: The domain name fordworld.com will be available for a short period of time. . . . I have been receiving offers The Honorable Algenon L. I've indicated to the other interested parties that I'm extending this opportunity to you first before any decisions are to be made. We will not disturb the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Or uses a domain name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1081.html">CORTLAND LINE CO., INC V. THE ORVIS CO., INC<BR></A><BR>
Both Cortland and Orvis are in the fishing equipment business. Multiple spare reel spools with different fishing lines was an expensive proposition for most fishermen. Said first spool axle having a hollow aperture which is fitted over said first spool receiving shaft. Cartridge spool 26 is mounted between end plates 18a and 18d. Is a determination of fact. <U>See</U> <U>Southwall Techs. Is a matter of law. In dispute are the second end plate and the means for connecting.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1918.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Feder was on brief for appellant. Kunstadt was on brief for appellee. Not involved in the sale was CPL or its mark. Patent Office in July 1964.1 1 ALC was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1230.html">NOVO INDUSTRIES V. MICRO MOLDS<BR></A><BR>
Line height:200%'>Novo is the assignee of the 578 patent. Which is directed to a carrier assembly that holds one of a plurality of vertical slats (or blinds) that cover the interior of a window.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Figure 1 of the patent is reproduced below:</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. The slats have a large width relative to their thickness.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In use. A plurality of the carrier assemblies are supported on a horizontal tilt rod 18 that runs across the top of the window.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Each carrier assembly contains a gearing mechanism that causes a support finger 20 holding the slat 22 to rotate about the support finger s vertical axis when the tilt rod is rotated.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The rotation of the support finger causes the slat to rotate about its own vertical axis. Permitting more or less light to pass the slat as its angle relative to the window is changed.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-2180.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MOGHADAM (5/19/1999, NO. 98-2180)<BR></A><BR>
Appellant Ali Moghadam was convicted of violating that law (herein sometimes referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1032.html">CHAMPAGNE V. DELICATO<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1128.html">DH TECHNOLOGY V. SYNERGYSTEX<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-2180.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MOGHADAM (5/19/1999, NO. 98-2180)<BR></A><BR>
Appellant Ali Moghadam was convicted of violating that law (herein sometimes referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1076.html">PACKARD PRESS, INC V. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Rachel L. Of counsel was <u>John Tiedge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0071p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Grosse based upon its conclusion that the she did not act in bad faith within the meaning of the ACPA. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from a dispute related to landscaping work that was performed by Lucas Nursery at the residence of Michelle Grosse. Grosse contends that the work was performed inadequately. The web page was titled. Patent & Trademark Office to determine whether there was a registered trademark for Lucas Nursery. Summary judgment is proper if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1304o.html">UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER V. G.D. SEARLE & CO.,INC., ET AL. [ORDER]<BR></A><BR>
Filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the petition were <u>Emily A. Filed an opposition to the petition for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the opposition were <u>Richard G. Becker</u> and <u>Daniel L. <span class=SpellE>Reisner</span></u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the opposition was <u>Robert L. <span class=SpellE>Baechtold</span></u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Susan M. <span class=SpellE>Spaeth</span></u> and <u>Madison C. <span class=SpellE>Jellins</span></u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1450.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1176.html">MICHAEL I. KROLL V. FRANK A. FINNERTY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for the defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/96-5438.man.html">BURGER KING CORP. V. WEAVER (3/9/1999, NO. 96-5438)<BR></A><BR>
BKC sued to recover the amounts it was due under the franchise agreements and Weaver counterclaimed on a variety of grounds. This restaurant is referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/96-5438.man.html">BURGER KING CORP. V. WEAVER (3/9/1999, NO. 96-5438)<BR></A><BR>
BKC sued to recover the amounts it was due under the franchise agreements and Weaver counterclaimed on a variety of grounds. This restaurant is referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Gregory J. With him on the brief was John Margiotta. The Board's refusal to register Palm Bay's VEUVE ROYALE mark is affirmed. 1 Paul R. Is a legal determination based upon factual underpinnings. Evidence is substantial if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The trademark examiner ruled that the mark was generic for barbership services. 048 for The Board's ruling is supported by the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4017.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Microsoft is a developer and licensor of computer software. MBC is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City. Is primarily responsible for MBC's financial functions. Including ensuring the company's accounts are balanced and sufficiently funded. Who is married to Marianne Blackburn. Is a 1% owner and member of MBC and is responsible for managing MBC's operations. Works for MBC as an independent contractor. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> MBC is engaged in the wholesale distribution of computer software and paraphernalia. Its primary customer base is allegedly comprised of small manufacturers of personal computers. The majority of its purchases and sales have been of Microsoft original equipment manufacturer (OEM) software. MBC is not licensed or authorized by Microsoft to distribute Microsoft software. It does not check to see if the dealers or brokers to whom it sells software are licensed by Microsoft. That each piece of Microsoft software sold by MBC is authentic.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1216.html">BOSE CORPORATION V. QSC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001356.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
NSI was the only company authorized by the government to serve as a registrar for Internet domain names. The TLD is the suffix. The SLD is the prefix.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312565.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: At issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff appellee State Farm Fire & Honorable Fern M. Sitting by designation. * Casualty Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021855.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CHEWL'S HOSPITALITY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Chewl argues that the arbitration award should be set aside because (1) the arbitration clause is unconscionable. (2) the contractual liquidated damages clause in the underlying contract is an unenforceable penalty. Chewl was entitled to operate a hotel using Choice Hotels'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1558.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Evan S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>John M. Associate Solicitor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Nancy C. Precludes registration of marks that are merely descriptive. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>In re MBNA Am. More than substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that the two service marks in issue are merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the services. To register the marks MONTANA SERIES and PHILADELPHIA CARD for credit card services. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The recitation of services for the two marks was later amended to read: credit card services featuring credit cards depicting scenes or subject matter of. Line height:200%'>Pending are at least 75 other applications filed by MBNA to register similar service marks. Were allowed registration by the Examining Attorney and issued in 1992 and 1995.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/013425U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded Dakota Industries could not do so because there was no likelihood of confusion. The court found that although the marks were similar and the clothing products were closely related. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-1464.wpd.html">YODER V. HONEYWELL INC.<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact remain as to whether (1) Bull was the alter ego or instru mentality of its parent Honeywell. (2) Honeywell was a manufacturer or apparent manufacturer under Colorado law and Restatement (Second) of Torts 400. Honeywell was the only defendant at that time. In plaintiffs' amended complaint they alleged that Honeywell and/or Bull manufactured the keyboard equipment and asserted that Bull and its predecessors were alter egos or instrumentalities of Honeywell. The court first found that Honeywell was not liable to plaintiffs as a manufacturer of the keyboards. Based on [a former Honeywell em ployee's] examination of the keyboards he determined that the keyboards were not manufactured by Honeywell. Plaintiffs have made no showing that a genuine issue of fact exists that Honeywell manufactured. Finding that plaintiffs' claim was time barred. II Plaintiffs first assert that summary judgment(1) in favor of Honeywell was improper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E387F8447EB62A488256F090072552A/$file/0355114.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the latest round in a protracted trademark dispute between Jerry's Famous Deli (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/951996.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The relevant facts are undisputed. Each man was an individual signatory to the Franchise Agreement. Choice Hotels was forced to file suit in April 1989. Pursuant to G&B's motion to dismiss the action on the basis that it was time barred. Inc. is the successor in interest to Quality Courts Motels. It is currently known as Choice Hotels International. G&B was. Finding that limitations did not bar the action because the Assumption Agreement was under seal and the Franchise Agreement had merged into it. Which are signed under seal. G&B contends that Choice Hotels is precluded from seeking recovery for G&B's 1988 breach because Choice Hotels brought suit under the Franchise Agreement. Which is an unsealed document and to which Maryland's three year statute of limitations applies.3 Furthermore G&B asserts that the Franchise Agreement and not the sealed Assumption Agreement contained all the relevant terms and conditions to which it had to comply.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1291.html">RECOT, INC. V. M.C. BECTON<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>Laurence R. ) dismissed the opposition on the ground that there was no likelihood that consumers would confuse FIDO LAY with Recot
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trademark infringement dispute between the owner of a registered service mark. Concluding there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Mid State's unauthorized use of MQVP's service mark was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971915.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(Plantation) have infringed Resorts' service marks. It concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact pertaining to the defenses of laches and acquiescence. Is valid and that National and Plantation have infringed the mark. The area was called Tuftstown until 1895 when Tufts changed the name to Pinehurst. 928 (4th Cir. 1995). 5 A mark shall be canceled if its registration was fraudulently obtained. An applicant is required to state under oath that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/021944P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction in the district court was based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338. Jurisdiction in this court is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Buchroeder & Co. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-1047.htm">02-1047 -- HARVEY BARNETT INC. V. SHIDLER -- 08/06/2003<BR></A><BR>
Which is used to help instructors understand
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611136.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Suplimet Corporation was a Miami based company acting as a wholesale distributor of cell phone parts and accessories. Police received information that Suplimet was selling counterfeit items. Who was present. As he was only Suplimet's sales manager. No criminal charges were filed at this time.1 Honorable Tom Stagg. Herman and Xavier were indicted for conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and trafficking in counterfeit goods. Section 2B5.3 is used to calculate the offense level for a conviction stemming from the counterfeiting and/or infringement of a trademark or copyright. Which is then enhanced on the basis of the amount of the infringement. The total offense level for both defendants was 27. They argued that the correct computations should have reflected the value of the counterfeit or infringing 3 items in the market in which those goods were sold. Which in this case was Latin America. Their offense levels would have been 8. Asserted that the retail value 4 of the legitimate or infringed item in the United States was the proper valuation method under section 2B5.3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991935.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. S.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1313.html">SEIKO EPSON CORP. V. NU-KOTE INTERNATIONAL INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>Brian M. With him on the brief was <U>Ronald S. Of counsel were <U>Robert D. While the appeal of the preliminary injunction was pending Epson amended its complaint to add counts of infringement of three additional patents. 472 (together
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-9157.opa.html">KASON INDUS., INC. V. COMPONENT HARDWARE GROUP<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kason Indus. The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market.<p> In 1985. CHG began manufacturing a latch that Kason claims is virtually identical to its 533D latch. CHG's latch is designated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3932_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Since 1990 many of these tables have featured one rather than two legs on each end. Shows the idea: Between 1990 and 1997 Bretford was the only seller of computer tables with a V shaped height adjustment system. Bretford contends that the V shaped design is its product's trade dress. The appeal presents two principal questions: whether Smith System is entitled to copy Bretford's design. Whether it was nonetheless wrongful for Smith System to use Bretford components in a sample table shown to the Dallas buyers. Which (A) is likely to cause confusion. 4 No. 03 3932 shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. ... (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register. The person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. Which they may do down to the last detail unless a feature of the product is protected by patent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/00-11742.man.html">INT'L CAFE V. HARD ROCK CAFE INT'L (U.S.A.) (5/31/2001, NO. 00-11742)<BR></A><BR>
S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café. Lebanon.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1283.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-11742.man.html">INT'L CAFE V. HARD ROCK CAFE INT'L (U.S.A.) (5/31/2001, NO. 00-11742)<BR></A><BR>
S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café. Lebanon.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061661np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court determined that Everett was unlikely to succeed on the merits after finding that relevant consumers were not likely to be confused by the two names. We will affirm the order of the District Court. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are not in significant dispute.1 Since 1985. Although most vitamins are sold over the counter. Everett claims to have spent over $2 million marketing and advertising these products. Our recitation of the facts is necessarily derived from these untested submissions. Both STROVITE and CORVITE are sold in the same fashion and to the same people: sales representatives personally visit doctors' offices and leave literature or sample boxes behind to encourage doctors to prescribe the product in the future. Wholesalers will purchase the vitamins and distribute them to pharmacies in anticipation of future prescriptions. Everett claims that it began receiving reports of confusion amongst doctors and pharmacists as to the existence of a relationship between CORVITE This was not an amicable parting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1220.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert W. Both marks were designated for use with educational goods and services in the fields of problem solving and critical thinking. Both applications were duly published for opposition. In both cases Sharp asserted that THINKSHARP is confusingly similar to and dilutes the family of SHARP trademarks. After the TTAB proceedings were completed but before the Board's decision. Stating that Sharp had not put ThinkSharp on notice and had not raised the issue until after the TTAB evidentiary proceedings were completed. The Board held that confusion was not likely between the word marks SHARP and THINKSHARP. The Board observed that the ThinkSharp applications were copending. The Board held that the applicant was entitled to choose to pursue one registration and abandon the other. The Board explained that an applicant is not required to defend against multiple oppositions in order to preserve its right to defend against one of them. The Board also confirmed its decision that there was not a likelihood of confusion between SHARP and THINKSHARP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3484.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both accounts were ultimately turned over to Credit Protection Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0117n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is undisputed that Defendants have never sold any products to Michigan residents or have never been contacted by any Michigan residents. The only evidence submitted of Defendants' presence in the United States was attendance at one trade show in New York. Evidence was submitted that Defendants' products are sold in Australia. There is. There is a box asking whether the user wears glasses. Defendants argued successfully below that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction because their contacts with Michigan through the website were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021137.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carefirst asks that we vacate the dismissal on the ground that Carefirst has made the requisite prima facie showing that CPC is subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland. Is one of the nation's largest healthcare insurance companies. It is a non profit BlueCross BlueShield licensee. BlueCross BlueShield is an association of independent health plans. Have been chartered to operate in geographically distinct terri CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND v. Among the services covered by Carefirst's trademark and service mark in the CAREFIRST name are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0368p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Antioch Company's scrapbook album configuration is functional and therefore ineligible for trade dress protection. Antioch is trying to bar Western Trimming Corporation (Westrim) from selling
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1202.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Barbara Loewenthal. With him on the brief were Edwin T. I The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. FN Canada is not licensed to act as an insurance broker in any country other than Canada. FN Canada's business does have connections to the United States. A domestic broker will contact FN Canada. Who will then provide an appropriate policy issued by one of FN Canada's underwriters. Features that are compliant with a given state's motor vehicle insurance laws). Another FN Canada customer is the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1388.html">NUPLA CORP. V. IXL MANUFACTURING<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1345.html">GAIA TECHNOLOGIES V. RECONVERSION TECH.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034092np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was an aggravated felon pursuant to INA § 101(a)(43)(R). Our jurisdiction does not extend beyond determining the predicate jurisdictional facts showing that Fofana is an alien who is removable by reason of committing an aggravated felony as defined in the statute. We have without doubt jurisdiction to determine whether Fofana is an alien removable for committing an aggravated felony. Or trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1791.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cordova</SPAN> was on brief. Rodriguez</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1465.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were William F. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief was Kenneth B. With her on the brief were Steven P. With him on the brief were Kathi A. This appeal was submitted after oral argument on May 3. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings that the The real party in interest is Monsanto Technology LLC. Which is owned by the Monsanto Company. 1 claimed invention lacks a specific and substantial utility and that the '643 application does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention. The claimed sequences are commonly referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-9157.opa.html">KASON INDUS., INC. V. COMPONENT HARDWARE GROUP<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kason Indus. The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market.<p> In 1985. CHG began manufacturing a latch that Kason claims is virtually identical to its 533D latch. CHG's latch is designated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011742.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café in Beirut. Defendants are Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.). A Canadian corporation that Plaintiff alleges is a wholly owned subsidiary controlled by HRC. Also pertinent to this appeal is Hard Rock Café Limited (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not consistent with due process because Proteq did not have sufficient
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011742.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café in Beirut. Defendants are Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.). A Canadian corporation that Plaintiff alleges is a wholly owned subsidiary controlled by HRC. Also pertinent to this appeal is Hard Rock Café Limited (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051469P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415341.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that Almeida's right of publicity claim under § 540.08 and common law is preempted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTYxMTJfc28ucGRm/05-6112_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1197.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Is the true owner of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/babbitt_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Murray with whom Lorusso & Loud was on brief for Aastar Mortgage Corp. P.C. was on brief for Star Financial Services. The court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. Reversal of the denial of the motion is warranted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1114o.html">DETHMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC V. AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT<BR></A><BR>
Filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2033p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether retailers have standing under S 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Appellants are a putative nationwide class of retail sellers of motor oil and other engine lubricants that purportedly compete with Slick 50. The Appellees were enjoined from disseminating false or unsubstantiated claims regarding Slick 50 and agreed to provide $10 million in discounts. Certain state consumer protection statutes that are not at issue in this appeal. At any time between the time Slick 50 was first marketed to the public and the present. Have offered for sale. The harm the Appellants allege they suffered is loss of sales of products they sell. The District Court held that only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5644158508C8CA9088256EEB00779E22/$file/0216305.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
NEW SENSOR CORP. 10957 We also remand for the district court to consider whether the exercise of pendent personal jurisdiction is appropriate in this case. CE's principal place of business is in Arizona. New Sensor's principal place of business is in New York. CE is the exclusive United States distributor of Jensen speakers. Which are manufactured in Italy by Sica Altoparlanti (SICA). New Sensor was aware of CE's exclusive distributorship. Which is also based in Arizona. Complicating matters between the companies was the assignment of a trademark for electron tubes to New Sensor by the former exclusive distributor of the tubes. New Sensor's assigned trademark was from Svetlana Electron Devices. CE does not assert that general personal jurisdiction over New Sensor existed. 3 The district court's ruling was made before we decided Harris Rutsky. 2 10960 CE DISTRIBUTION v. B. Intentional Tort Claim (Interference With Distributor Agreement) [3] When an intentional tort claim is asserted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1539.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.</span><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Lance J. Argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. <span class=SpellE>Whealan</span></u>. Associate Solicitor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Cynthia C. The Board concluded that the mark was primarily geographically deceptively <span class=SpellE>misdescriptive</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>In re Les <span class=SpellE>Halles</span> De Paris J.V.</u>. As the name for Les <span class=SpellE>Halles</span> restaurant in <st1:State><st1:place>New Yor
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1480.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Inc. are customers of Wang's International. They are only involved in the patent infringement claim. 1 arguing that it should be increased. Is directed to a design for a decorative marine propeller device that attaches to the trailer hitch of a vehicle and spins from the force of moving air similar to a windmill. Because the jury findings on design patent and product design trade dress infringement are not supported by substantial evidence. I. BACKGROUND Hartco is the owner of the '194 patent. The hitchcover is a decorative device that spins from the force of moving air when attached to the trailer hitch of a vehicle. When the licensing agreement was due to expire. Opting instead to design its own four blade hitchcover alleging that there were certain defects in Hartco's product. 1523 2 blade propeller was issued as U.S. While the agreement was in effect. A jury trial was then held on March 22. We reverse the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law if there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1585.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Tal S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Cynthia C. Associate Solicitors.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Nancy C. The TTAB affirmed the refusal to register on the ground that the marks consist of or comprise scandalous matter.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because substantial evidence supports the TTAB s finding that the term jack off is an offensive and vulgar reference to masturbation and that Boulevard s use of the marks refers to that meaning. The examining attorney refused registration
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1121.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Jay M. Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas W. Line height:200%'>BACKGROUND</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>The major issues in this appeal are the scope of the Gephardt patent and the Board s determination that claims 2. 65 67 and 71 73 are obvious based upon the combination of United States Patent No. 5. 838 ( Kikinis ) and Gephardt.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We summarize the portion of the factual background that is pertinent to this issue. Line height:200%'>The 904 application is directed to a real time thermal management system for computers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This system monitors central processing unit ( CPU ) temperature and activity levels to determine whether it is appropriate for the computer to rest by blocking some or all clock signals to portions of the CPU.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Stopping clock signals to a portion of the CPU slows down the operation of tha
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1121e.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Jay M. Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1268.html">TRANSCLEAN CORPORATION, V. BRIDEGWOOD SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1309.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Janet A. Of counsel was Linda M. Prominently displayed on the home page are links and interactive features allowing a user to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/031902u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That both plaintiff and defendant are entitled to concurrent use trademark registrations. The District Court held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Will affirm. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-21088.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. JBJ argues that the district court should not have applied New York's trademark dilution law to JBJ because there was no jurisdictional nexus connecting JBJ to New York for the purposes of in personam or in rem jurisdiction. JBJ is correct. It was improper for the district court to apply New York's trademark dilution law to JBJ. Since there is ample support on for the court's alternative liability holdings based federal trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting law. The injunction ordered by the district court is carefully crafted and not unduly vague or overbroad. The substantially reduced attorneys' fee award is reasonable and justified under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b) without resort to a finding of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/014166u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Providence Washington Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0837p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A default judgment will be vacated. The case will be transferred to the district where the defendant resides and carries on his business. May have waived an objection to venue by failing to have an attorney appear on its behalf. We will nevertheless vacate the judgment against the company as well so that the entire action may be transferred to the same district. Inc. is a nationwide franchisor incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and maintains its principal place of business in that state. Defendant Leonardo Martino is a Michigan resident and the sole stockholder of co defendant Trans One II. Venue and jurisdiction in Montgomery County were established by a forum selection clause in the Cottman agreement. Judgment was entered against defendants by default. The Cottman Martino agreement was no longer in effect. The Martino litigation was consolidated with several other suits previously brought by Cottman in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a number of its former Michigan franchisees. Held that venue was proper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0014p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary questions before us are (1) whether the District Court erred in holding that a Michigan state court action. By the Williams group against Kid Rock is preempted by the Copyright Act under the developing doctrine of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1530.html">BLACKLIGHT POWER V. ROGAN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1428.html">APPLIED MATERIALS V. ADVANCED SEMICOND.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/babbitt_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-1330.htm">01-1330 -- CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE CORPORATION V. MERAJ INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION -- 01/08/2003<BR></A><BR>
Century 21 was denied relief and Meraj obtained a verdict<strong> </strong>for $700. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/002236.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether the district court erred in determining that r egistering domain names that are intentional misspellings of distinctive or famous names constitutes unlawful conduct under the Act. Many of which are sold at gift stores acr oss the country. Visitors were trapped or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1160.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Nancy C. Of counsel was <u>John M. Finding that it was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive for the goods identified. The examiner found that the primary significance of the term NEW YORK was geographical. Based upon evidence that hand bags and luggage are designed and manufactured in New York. The Board found that the evidence established that the mark was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 1692. The Board pointed to evidence that showed 1) New York is a well known geographic place and 2) New York is well known as a place where leather goods and handbags are designed and manufactured. <u>See</u> <u>id</u>. at 1690. It rejected Wada's assertion that the mark is intended to evoke a ". Thus is not primarily geographic. <u>See</u> <u>id</u>. at 1691 92. Particularly since Wada could point to no evidence that there was a ". Standard of Review</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3861_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
NAA charged that Stravina was deceiving the public and harming manufacturers of authentic Native American goods by suggesting that its products too were authentic. Which forbids selling merchandise
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Michael B. This is a suit for a refund of patent fees alleged to have been unlawfully exacted. Because the statute was designed to generate revenue to fund federal programs other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1243.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/033151p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Either that (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1492.html">WU V. WANG<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1491.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991005U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is infringing on plaintiff's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1391.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Gunther J. With him on the brief was John M. Of counsel was Linda Moncys Isacson. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's factual findings and the Board's conclusion of obviousness was correct. The ultimate determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a legal conclusion based on underlying findings of fact. Whether an invention has produced unexpected results and whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention are questions of fact. This court affirms the Board's factual determinations if they are based upon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1072.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Was not supported by substantial evidence. The stand is comprised of a one foot steel pipe (intended to contain the tree base). The stand also includes four screws that are meant to secure the tree by fitting into apertures that are evenly spaced around the steel pipe component. DFG's stand was colored green and red. He was granted U.S. Home Depot designed a heavy duty Christmas tree stand whose design was roughly similar to DFG's stand. Home Depot had arranged through IBC to have the stand manufactured by MA in China. When Home Depot later discovered that DFG's stand was covered by a design patent. A jury trial on DFG's trade dress and unfair competition claims was held. Several other manufacturers made and sold Christmas stands that were similar to the DFG stand. Those manufacturers are not parties to this action. DFG is not appealing the district court's grant of summary judgment on the design patent claim in this appeal. 04 1072. MA and IBC also appeal the district court's unfair competition verdict.3 DFG cross appeals the district court's reduction of the jury's punitive damage award against Home Depot as well as its determination that prejudgment interest is not available for Lanham Act violations.4 Because the district court's jurisdiction was based in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1308.html">HELFGOTT & KARAS, P.C. V. DICKENSON, Q. TODD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Aaron B. With him on the brief was <U>Albin F. Of counsel were <U>Scott A. At issue is the refusal of the </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F43A980D299ECAF988256FA8007A2836/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1313a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Atkin were on brief for petitioner Patent Office Professional Association. Bonney was on brief for petitioners National Association of Government Employees. Were on brief for the respon dent. Were on brief for the intervenors. Grile were on brief for amicus curiae American Federation of Govern ment Employees. I. The Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) are labor unions representing federal employees. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (Veteran Affairs) and the United States Department of the Air Force (Air Force) (collectively agencies) are federal agencies subject to the FSLMRS's collective bargaining re quirement and thus must bargain with their employees over all labor issues not statutorily excluded therefrom. See 5 U.S.C. s 7102 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1042.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1219.html">PREMYSLER V. LEHMAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002319.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Warm Products (Warm) is a distributor of wholesale products. Including cotton batting marketed under the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1503.html">ELMER V. ICC FABRICATING, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011285.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Search
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1583.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jill D. Singer</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Gregory J. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. Tab stops:.5in'>Carol Klopfenstein and John Brent appeal a deci
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1569.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stephen Walsh</u> and <u>Linda <span class=SpellE>Moncys</span> <span class=SpellE>Isacson</span></u>. Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Kevin M. Argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stephen Walsh</u> and <u>Linda <span class=SpellE>Moncys</span> <span class=SpellE>Isacson</span></u>. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Rex B. Because the record is silent on the extent to which the foreign sales were known to the public. Wilhelm <span class=SpellE>Elsner</span> is a plant breeder who resides in Germany and whose botanical products include various varieties of geraniums.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In September 1997. Was listed in the CPVO Official Gazette that was published in December 1997.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>That listing disclosed the names and addresses of the breeder and its representative.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1504.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. The examining attorney stated:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> GASPAR(S) is clearly the dominant element in all the marks.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In the proposed mark. The word ALE is descriptive and disclaimed. Chatam argued that its mark was distinctive without any likelihood of confusion between its mark and the two registered marks.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Further. Chatam challenged the examining attorney s conclusion that GASPAR is a dominant feature.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Chatam observed that ale and tequila are different classes of goods with different ethnic origins (ale being Germanic or English and tequila being Mexican).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Chatam also declared that JOSE GASPAR is not the name of any known living individual.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyTextFirstIndent2>Despite Chatam s response.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1479.html">STEVENS V. TAMAI<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Sandip H. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>William F. ) are parties to Interference No. 103. ) was filed February 7. ) was filed February 15. 1994.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The '839 application is a continuation in part of U.S. Which was filed March 29. Tamai was accorded senior party status.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>Both parties filed preliminary motions under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(f). Line height:normal'>(a) A party filing a motion has the burden of proof to show that it is entitled to the relief sought in the motion. When the earlier application is an application filed in a foreign country. Certify that a copy of the application has been served on all opponents. <u>If the earlier filed applicati
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1406.html">XECHEM INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Marcy Hogan Greer</u> and <u>Robert E. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></sup></span><![endif]></span></span></sup></span></a> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The only issue on appeal is whether the University is subject to suit in federal court to obtain correction of the <span class=SpellE>inventorship</span> of United States Patents No. 5. Font family:Arial'>The University's motion to dismiss was brought under Fed. P. 12(b)(6) (dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>When dismissal is on the pleadings. The plaintiff's well pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and all reasonable factual inferences are drawn in its favor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Albright v. Disputed material facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/023333u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Engaging in any activity or business or establishing any new businesses that are substantially in competition with Arch.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1610.html">ELI LILLY & CO., V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1139.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PC were on brief for appellee Rey. Berry & Howard were on brief for appellants Lafferty. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1111.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510143.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thompkins (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1198.html">HAN BEAUTY, INC. V. ALBERTO-CULVER COMPANY<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <u>Eric S. With him on the brief were <u>Douglas N. S conclusion is correct. Goods are inexpensive and likely to be bought on impulse. Is sufficiently similar to [Alberto Culver
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1114r.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>The following sentence was inadvertently left out of the opinion:</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> . <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>Attached you will find a corrected copy of the opinion.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1676a.html">PATENT OFF PROF ASSN V. FLRA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LS0wNzc2X3NvLnBkZg==/04--0776_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTIxNTNfc28ucGRm/04-2153_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052648np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McRae was granted leave to amend to articulate claims distinct from those based upon the corporation's trademark. Orders denying McRae's requests for reconsideration and reargument were entered on April 11 and 12. We will affirm.1 McRae alleged trademark infringement. It is undisputed that the mark. Is held by McRae's corporation. A copy of the trademark itself indicates that the corporation is the registered owner. Inc. is the real party in interest. The appellees have argued that the appeal is untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). The notice of appeal was filed on April 20. It was filed within 30 days of the orders disposing of the counterclaims and motions for reconsideration and reargument. The March 21 order was not appealable. Until the litigation was ended as to the counterclaims and the motions for reconsideration. There was no evidence whatever that either McRae or his corporation had any common law or commercial interests in the FUBU mark. 3 2 1 although that fact prevents him from bringing this pro se lawsuit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053430p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stated that the bill was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062649p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a discretionary decision. It turns on whether the Court believes that the case is. We emphasize that the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The facts underlying this case are undisputed and uncomplicated. Mario Andretti was a successful and well known race car driver before he retired from automobile racing. Andretti is now a corporate spokesman for companies that contract with Andretti for the exclusive right to utilize his name. Borla's attorney attached his own declaration to the notice of removal stating that Andretti's pre suit demands to Borla were about $200. His claims were moot due to Borla's offer to enter a permanent injunction. The Judgment was in favor of Andretti and M.A. 500. The permanent injunction was worded identically to the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that Andretti was a prevailing party and therefore that Borla was not entitled to costs or attorney fees as provided in Rule 54(d) and the Lanham Act. The court also determined that Borla was not entitled to attorney fees under the Copyright Act because. Even though Borla had argued that several of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-3011.htm">97-3011 -- HEARTSPRINGS INC. V. HEARTSPRING INC. -- 04/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
Defendant Heartspring runs a school in which physically disabled children are taught basic life skills such as dressing. Plaintiff claims defendant's use of the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1154.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1922_047.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Matthew Hale was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of obstructing justice. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. OEOE 2 No. 05 1922 entered against his white supremacist organization by United States District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow and his involvement in a plot to have the judge murdered. Hale was sentenced to a total of 480 months' imprisonment. I. Hale was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2495.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was set to expire in the fall of 1998. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1201.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Nancy J. The device is conically shaped with a large opening that fits on a container and a smaller opening at the opposite end that allows popped popcorn to pass through when the device is attached to a popcorn container and turned upside down. An embodiment disclosed in Schreiber's patent application is depicted below. </p> <p>Schreiber filed a number of claims. 15 were finally rejected. Those claims are the subjects of this appeal. The taper of the top being uniform and such as to by itself jam up the popped popcorn before the end of the cone and permit the dispensing of only a few kernels at a shake of a package when the top is mounted on the container.</p> <p>Claim 2 is similar to claim 1 but additionally recites that the top comprises a ". Schreiber does not argue that claims 14 and 15 are patentable if claims 1 and 2 are not. We need not address claims 14 and 15.</p> <p>Claim 1 was rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Swiss Patent No. 172.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1161.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Thomas L. Helped his son flee to Israel after learning that the son was being investigated in connection with a murder. Sheinbein was barred from practicing law in Maryland on December 16. Disbarment was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1148.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of counsel was David E. Respectively for the FIRSTCAROLINACARE mark Because the Board's findings are supported by substantial used in conjunction with healthcare insurance claims administration and health maintenance organizations (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Ted G. Of Counsel on the brief were Jason Rantanen and Genevieve A. With him on the brief was Teresa Ragatz. Of counsel on the brief were Alan B. That Andrx had not shown a likelihood of proving that any of the patents are invalid. Arguing (1) that Abbott is collaterally estopped from asserting certain claims in the three patents because of findings of invalidity and unenforceability of the patents in proceedings against other defendants. (2) that the district court erred in finding that Abbott is likely to succeed in proving infringement with respect to any of the asserted claims of the three patents. Because we find that collateral estoppel does not apply and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Abbott is likely to succeed on the merits. Three such cases are relevant to this appeal Abbott's cases against Teva Pharmaceuticals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1162.html">ULTRADENT V. LIFE-LIKE COSMETICS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1300.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were James C. With him on the brief were Russell L. I. BACKGROUND SanDisk is in the flash memory storage market and owns several patents related to flash memory storage products. The discussions of May and June that 05 1300 2 Thompson referred to were discussions among managers and vice presidents of SanDisk and ST at business meetings held on May 18. The business meetings were unrelated to any patents. Noting that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1233.html">SUPERIOR FIREPLACE V. MAJESTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1677.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellant. With whom Konowitz & Greenberg was on brief for appellees. This is an appeal by William KEETON. The error was harmless in relation to the issues before us in this appeal. These conclusions relate to issues that are at least potentially mixed legal factual issues that would be more appropriately decided. After the parties have had a full opportunity for discovery and development of evidence bearing upon the factual elements of the legal factual mix. They are open to de novo consideration in the district court during further proceedings there. Before July 1989 Donoghue is an investment adviser well known as an expert on money markets and mutual funds. One of his business entities was The Donoghue Organization. A Massachusetts corporation of which Donoghue was the sole stockholder. Its flagship publication was Donoghue's MoneyLetter a semi monthly newsletter introduced by Donoghue in 1980. Donoghue's MoneyLetter was voted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2241.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Beth Pirro Cook and Field & Schultz were on brief for appellees Aris Getty. Were found liable to Getty Petroleum Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4606.ord.html">FLORIDA BRECKENRIDGE, INC. V. SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-4606)<BR></A><BR>
After receiving notice that Solvay believed that Breckenridge was infringing on its trade rights. Were requested to file supplemental briefs. Arguing that Solvay's appeal was frivolous. A company merely had to file a New Drug Application ('NDA') or an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') and prove that their product was safe. The FDCA was amended to require proof that the product was effective as well as safe. The companies producing these drugs were given a two year window to submit revisions of their NDAs to prove their efficacy. Groups of drugs with approved NDAs were evaluated by an independent panel. The evidence was submitted to the FDA. A notice was published in the federal register and a supplemental NDA would be approved for these drugs. All drugs are new drugs and therefore require an approved NDA or ANDA before marketing unless they are generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for their labeled use (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/93-9077.html">ORIGINAL APPALACHIAN ARTWORKS V. S. DIAMOND ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Original Appalachian Artworks v. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032038p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges *Judge Chertoff heard oral argument in this case but resigned prior to the time the opinion was filed. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a showing of willful infringement is a prerequisite to an accounting of a trademark infringer's profits for a violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. We hold that wilfulness is an important equitable factor but not a prerequisite to such an award. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Joseph Renosky was a member of the board of directors of Banjo Buddies. Banjo Buddies' principal product during that time was an extremely successful fishing lure called the Banjo Minnow. The Banjo Minnow was principally advertised via
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1420.html">LERMER V. LERMER CORP.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMzNjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3362-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The order of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendant appellant Diamond State is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this order. Diamond is required to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-4844.opa.html">LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005251.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1109.html">THE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. AMERICAN BIOSCIENCE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Mark J. Carlozzi</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Sidney L. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Robert N. Jr.</u><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Joseph F. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> is a natural compound found in the bark of the Pacific yew tree (<span class=SpellE>Taxus</span> <span class=SpellE>brevifolia</span>).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Over the last several decades. Scientists discovered that <span class=SpellE>taxol</span> is not only an effective chemotherapeutic agent. Especially oxygen starved ( hypoxic ) cancer cells that are ordinarily resistant to radiation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>A 1992 paper published by researchers at <st1:place><st1:PlaceName>Columbia</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType>University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> disclosed the dual activities of <span class=SpellE>taxol</span> as a simultaneously <span class=SpellE>cytotoxic</span> and <span class=SpellE>radiosensitizing</span> agent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> Roy B. <span class=SpellE>Tishler</span> et al.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067.htm">99-4067 -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. Who in turn follow suit in a cycle that replicates itself. <strong>(<u>Id.</u> at 3079 81.)</strong> There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. <strong>(IX App. at 2915:21 2916:20. X App. at 3213:16 3214:15.) </strong> Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067a.htm">99-4067A -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
Which were not intended to be included in the published opinion. A corrected copy of the opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0220p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amouri's Grand Foods Page 2 Background Lorillard manufactures and sells cigarettes under a variety of brand names (J.A. 55).1 One of its most popular brands is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971696.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The first store is the subject of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1079.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Bruce R. Of counsel was H. With him on the brief were Edward C. The court will collectively refer to these parties as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1063.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Frank J. With him on the brief was Lile H. Which was opened in 1898 by César Ritz. The Ritz Hotel is one of the most luxurious and renowned hotels in the world. These products are sold under a variety of registered marks. Which was derived from its founder's last name. Shen's appeal is moot. 04 1063. The board found that while shower curtains are closely related to Shen's products. RHL's PUTTING ON THE RITZ mark is dissimilar to Shen's RITZ mark in terms of appearance. Again the board found that the goods described in RHL's applications were related to Shen's goods. That the differences in the marks were sufficient to prevent any likelihood of confusion. Finding that there was a likelihood of confusion because cooking classes require the use of kitchen textiles. 1076 that gloves are too related to barbeque mitts considering the similarity of the marks. Whether there is a likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on underlying facts. The PTO may refuse to register a trademark that is so similar to a registered mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981029.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 98 1029 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Arguing that the fee award is not authorized by Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act. 3 Because we find the award to be legally sound. A party must prove three elements: (1) the trade dress is primarily nonfunctional. (2) the trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired a secondary meaning. Holland discovered that Bubba was marketing a gas fired barbecue grill that was essentially identical in appearance to the Holland Grill.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-13836.man.html">ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1480.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were John M. Both of the parties to a patent interference proceeding have appealed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The decision is vacated and the case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings. Gideon Gross (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1129.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Virginia for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1148.html">CUSTOM COMPUTER SERVICES, INC V. PAYCHEX<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Andrew Klungness</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . 2002</st1:date>).<a style='mso footnote id: ftn1' href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1050e.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Miriam D. Argued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun01/02-41339-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether Crittenden's previous Texas conviction for delivery of a simulated controlled substance qualifies under § 4B1.1 as one of the requisite two controlled substance offenses. I. After Crittenden was arrested in Texas. Cocaine was found in his vehicle. The district court found Crittenden's objection) that Crittenden was a career offender under the Guidelines. He resulting was in a substantial inter alia. Claiming that his previous conviction for delivery of a simulated controlled substance is not a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. A. Application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. 412 (5th Cir. 2003). provide for career offender status if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction. (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that 2 E.g. They is either substance at least either a substance a crime of violence or a controlled offense. The only factor at issue U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2001) (emphasis added). is whether the 1994 Texas conviction for delivery of a simulated controlled substance is a Guidelines controlled substance offense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.L.L.C.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/93-9077.html">ORIGINAL APPALACHIAN ARTWORKS V. S. DIAMOND ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Original Appalachian Artworks v. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021738.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chemical crabgrass control products are most effective when applied to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul23/03-30470-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: The defendants have filed a petition for panel rehearing in which they ask that we further limit the scope of the proceedings on remand. The defendants argue that there is no need for a remand even regarding the Steakhouse restaurant. It is for the district court to determine in the first instance whether trademark specific remedies are available and appropriate in this case and whether the jury's award was inadequate to capture the losses compensable in a trademark action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1382ATTYFEE.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that Tamko's Heritage trademarks were valid. The district court issued orders that Tamko was entitled to: (1) an accounting of Ideal's profits. Attorneys' fees may be appropriate in circumstances where the acts of infringement were '
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1829E12C574B8E4888256BCD007EEF78/$file/0155154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Matthew Clark Bures was on the brief. The claims also have played a central role in Nutrition Now's marketing campaign. Rogovin vigorously complained to Rifkin that Nutrition Now's claims regarding PB8 were false and misleading. Jarrow alleged that Nutrition Now's claims were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1276.html">HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY V. PAVKARD PRESS<BR></A><BR>
Inc. s (Packard Press s) application for registration of the mark PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES for data processing and data transmission services.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1243.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Ross A. With him on the brief were John M. Because the PTO's findings were supported by substantial evidence. Because the disciplinary action was not arbitrary. Sophisticated clients generally are able to determine the kinds of legal representation they need and where to find counsel with the skills. Are often unfamiliar with even the most basic principles of patent law. Are vulnerable to those who seek to take advantage of their inexperience. Commonly available sources of guidance often are of little help. Either because they are too simplistic or too generalized to be of any particular assistance or because they are too complex to be readily understood. The PTO's listing of registered patent agents and attorneys is a basic resource and an assurance of legal competence and good moral character. As sophisticated as the PTO is in regulating practitioners who appear before it and in providing information about registered practitioners on its website and in other publicly distributed materials.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1192.html">VECTRA FITNESS V. TNWK CORP<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991804.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Contending this case was an exceptional one. Where personal service is not practicable. Affect only the property which is the subject of the action. When a part of the property is within another district. All parties agree that the district court did not have an opportunity to consider. We believe the most prudent and judicious course of action is to provide the district court with such an opportunity. PORSCHE.NET and PORSCHECLUB.NET argue that Porsche's claims against them should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the basis that the claims are not ripe. Is due to Porsche's purported failure to allege any immediate or future injury to Porsche caused by them. We have reviewed this proposed alternative basis for affirmance and find it to be without merit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5178.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Marta Whearley. With him on the brief was Kristine E. Of counsel on the brief were Nancie G. Contend that their imported goods were taken without just compensation. Underwriters Laboratories (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5125.html">JOHN C. BOYLE V. US<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Thomas J. Mutual fund products that are targeted to different maturity dates depending upon the year the money is desired by the investor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § . 1295(a)(3) (1994).</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9888406F8A5B111D88256B8200077F52/$file/0115466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. RIO operates a website that informs prospective customers about its hotel and allows those enticed by Lady Luck to make reservations. 4468 RII is a Costa Rican entity that participates in an Internet sports gambling operation. Which was not authorized to accept service on RII's behalf. RII's 4470 eventual responses were almost entirely useless. 3 permits service in a place not within any judicial district of the United States
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Ignition is a Cincinnati based sports training organization formed in May 2004. Its primary customers are high school athletes. Its most popular sport is soccer. Hantz Soccer and most of its advertising is done there. The team is owned and operated by Hantz. ANALYSIS The standard for reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for preliminary injunction is abuse of discretion. Hantz Soccer account
|
|
ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
By the time this action was commenced. The exterior appearances of AHM's facilities are somewhat similar. Each is a rectangular building with a simulated tower. The roofs reflect different architectural styles and are constructed of dissimilar materials. Booth seating is located generally on one side of the island or peninsula. Stool seating is located on the other. Numerous television monitors and video games are present. As are pool tables. They are not identical. The menus are extensive. More than 20 types of beer are served on tap. Marketing data indicate that customers dining with their families are AHM's most frequent guests. Inc. was preparing to open a facility in Raleigh named the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Nathan P. Of counsel on the brief was Hunter J. BACKGROUND Syngenta Seeds is an international agribusiness that produces. At the heart of this litigation is a Syngenta Seeds product known as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are called on to decide whether the Iranian trade embargo. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Masood Kalantari is a producer of television programs and a promoter of Iranian cultural events in the United States. He is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-7037a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001487.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Plaintiffs are the heirs of William F. Among Jenkins' works is the short story
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1646.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1320.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Leo Stoller's request for an extension of time within which to oppose the registration of DARKSTAR by Northern Telepresence Corp. was denied by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4606.ord.html">FLORIDA BRECKENRIDGE, INC. V. SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-4606)<BR></A><BR>
After receiving notice that Solvay believed that Breckenridge was infringing on its trade rights. Were requested to file supplemental briefs. Arguing that Solvay's appeal was frivolous. A company merely had to file a New Drug Application ('NDA') or an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') and prove that their product was safe. The FDCA was amended to require proof that the product was effective as well as safe. The companies producing these drugs were given a two year window to submit revisions of their NDAs to prove their efficacy. Groups of drugs with approved NDAs were evaluated by an independent panel. The evidence was submitted to the FDA. A notice was published in the federal register and a supplemental NDA would be approved for these drugs. All drugs are new drugs and therefore require an approved NDA or ANDA before marketing unless they are generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for their labeled use (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1075.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Albin F. Of counsel was</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1158.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for Sang Su Lee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQxMDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4103-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Original Packaging Weight Watchers is a leading provider of weight loss products and services. It has offered a diet plan known as the Points or Winning Points plan in which foods are given a point value based on the number of calories and grams of fat and fiber they contain. Weight Watchers members are assigned a points range principally based on their body weight and may eat what they choose so long as the total point value of the food they eat throughout the day does not exceed their assigned ranges. Defendant Luigino's Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTU1ODJfc28ucGRm/04-5582_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges This is an appeal in a copyright case. Holding that Southco was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the serial numbers lacked sufficient originality to be copyrighted. Holding that an affidavit submitted by Southco in opposition to Kanebridge's summary judgment motion was sufficient to demonstrate that the numbers reflected considerable creativity. We now hold that the numbers are not protected by copyright.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-2157.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1590.html">MICHAEL BROWN V. MARIANO BARBACID<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031845p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were telling architects that the partitions of Santana Products. They contended that they could not be held liable for Santana's claims because they were merely petitioning the government about a safety matter. An action which was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Arguing that the claims were barred either by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. We will affirm the District Bobrick Corporation is the parent company of Bobrick Washroom Equipment. We will refer to them collectively as Bobrick. 4 1 Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santana's Sherman Act § 1 claim and its tortious interference with prospective contract claim.2 However. Because we conclude that the Lanham Act claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment on that claim. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the District Court's very thorough opinion.3 A. The Toilet Partition Industry Santana and Bobrick manufacture toilet partitions.4 Toilet partitions are made of different materials.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022461.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that the PTO's 2002 advertising campaign to alert the public about
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-4764_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1311.html">PHILLIP W. BERMAN V. GERARD HOUSEY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1320.html">ULEAD SYSTEMS, INC. (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), ET AL. V. LEX COMPUTER AND MANAGEMENT CORP.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff cross appellant and cross defendant cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Jon E. Argued for defendant/cross claimant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey G. 188 ( the 188 patent ) is unenforceable and expired because Lex falsely claimed status (and paid maintenance fees) as a small entity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Lex also appeals the district court s award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. § . A Taiwan corporation ( U
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1354.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1439.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1445.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942157.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One course taught in the 1989 fall semester. 1 U.S.C. 1125(a).2 U.F. alternatively argues that a new trial is required because the great weight of the evidence is against the jury's verdict as to the copyright claims and/or because the jury's verdict was tainted by counsel's misconduct during trial. Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are subject to de novo review. If the facts and inferences are so strong and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The grant of a directed verdict is proper. Substantial evidence is presented opposed to the motion. This evidence is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. Denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for clear abuse of At the outset. We do
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/94-8700.op2.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939077.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052054p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 is a conviction for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Hyperstealth applied for the trademark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Department of Justice were on brief for appellee. Zanghi argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the money laundering counts. That our review should thus ask if the evidence was sufficient to meet the higher standard set by the erroneous instruction. This unusual contention is important to the outcome of this appeal because the evidence met the lower statutory standard but would not have met the higher standard proposed by the instruction. Indian was not authorized by its articles of incorporation to issue preferred shares. Which was authorized to issue only 10. (Zanghi was the sole shareholder of Indian. He was ultimately arrested in New York City. Zanghi was convicted on all counts. The indictment alleged that these funds were the proceeds of securities fraud. [is subject to fine. Making it appear that the check was a repayment of a personal loan from Zanghi to Indian. Making it appear that the check was in repayment of a loan by Brazeau to Indian. The jury was required to find that Zanghi had (1) engaged in a financial transaction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1046.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04AE71A22799055B88256E83007BB106/$file/0257014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that although service of process was not made
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1629.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The principal issue in this appeal is Bohai's argument that 2320(d) is unconstitutionally vague. The factual allegations contained in the entire indictment were properly before the district court. 000 pairs of the shoes but asked for assurances that they were not counterfeit. Documents were also backdated. Customs Service at the time of entry falsely indicated that the shoes had been manufactured pursuant to a valid Stride Rite purchase order and were intended to be delivered to Stride Rite or its consignee. The employee explained to the shipping company that Bohai and Stride Rite were manufacturing the shoes together as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1187.html">NOELLE V. LEDERMAN, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Glenn E. Argued for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Margaret A. Gunnison</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John P. <st1:State>New York</st1:State></st1:place>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Stanley Den Kua Liang</u>. </o:p></p> <p class=Normal AS style='margin top:0in'>This is an appeal from an interference proceeding
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2733.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Monospace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1329.html">SILENT DRIVE, INC V. STRONG INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Edmund J. Harty</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Ronald M. Argued for defendents appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Margaret C
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1801.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-2157.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/021243p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine to what extent a District Court is bound by a ruling by this Court on a prior appeal that had reversed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction. We determined that Southco had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because Southco's product numbers were mechanically dictated by its numbering system. The District Court held that it was bound by the prior panel's decision. We will reverse the judgment 3 of the District Court and remand this case to it for consideration of the Bisbing declaration. The product numbers are used not only in the ordering process but also in the manufacturing process to insure the precisely correct identification of each product and its components. Captive screws are used to fasten panels together. The screw is mounted in one panel by means of the ferrule and the other panel contains an internally threaded insert that receives the screw. 149 and fn 1 (3d Cir. 2001) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1077.html">BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL. V. PHARMACHEMIE B.V.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Constantine L. Was <u>Robert L. With him on the brief was <u>Laurie S. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>The question in this patent case is whether the patent in suit is invalid for double patenting.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The district court held on summary judgment that an earlier patent. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we disagree with a key conclusion on which the district court s summary judgment was based. Is the owner of U.S. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. is the exclusive licensee under that patent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The patent claims (1) methods for treating malignant tumors with certain platinum coordination compounds and (2) compositions containing those compounds in amounts sufficient to cause regression of those tumors.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Appellant Pharmachemie. Pharmachemie asserted that the 927 patent was invalid for obviousness type double patenting over U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-4764_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1215.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Patrick J. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>J. ¶ 1.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise is in accordance with law. ) of the material from which it is made.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>A dental floss made from a material with a COF that is too high will stick to teeth and will have to be used with substantial force.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Material with too low a COF will yield a dental floss that slips easily through a user's hands and will be difficult to manipulate.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Thus. The ideal dental floss is made from a material that has a COF in a particular ". Such that it is neither too sticky nor too slippery.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/014313u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and will affirm. I. The facts underlying this contentious litigation are well known to the parties. Will only be reviewed here as is relevant to the particular issue raised. Specifically the time spent on unsuccessful claims that are distinct from successful claims and documentation of the time spent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1327.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>John M. Associate Solicitor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Stephen Walsh</u> and <u>William LaMarca</u>. Or Thr Pro Tyr Ala Pro Glu Pro Gly Ser Thr ) and having the ability to inhibit the cytotoxic effect of TNF.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Appellants application also included claims to isolated DNA molecules that encode the claimed proteins.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The PTO issued a restriction requirement and Appellants filed divisional applications.<span style='mso
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1336.html">ELI LILLY AND COMPANY V. ARADIGM CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Todd G. Argued for defendant cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Tharan Gregory Lanier</u> of <st1:place><st1:City>Menlo Park</st1:City>. To have two of its scientists recognized as joint inventors on Aradigm's U.S. Line height:200%'>I</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='line height:200%'>Lilly is a pharmaceutical company.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1339.html">THE ARNOLD PARTNERSHIP V. JON DUDAS, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>John M. For amicus curiae GlaxoSmithKline.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David E. Korn</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Scott A. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoBodyTextFirstIndent2>The Arnold Partnership (Arnold) is the owner of record for the 252 patent. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The 252 patent was filed on December 18. Was issued on May 6. Is due to expire on December 18. 2004.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The commercial embodiment of the 252 patent is Vicoprofen<span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>® a combination of hydrocodone bitartrate (a salt of hydrocodone) and ibuprofen.</span><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because these components had only been available separately. The PTO determined the patent was not eligible for patent term extension to compensate for the period of regulatory review.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In particular.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0321p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1358.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. <span class=SpellE>Whealan</span></u>. Associate Solicitor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Cynthia C. Mso bidi font family:Arial'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>Claim construction is a matter of law that this court reviews without deference.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><span class=SpellE><u>Cybor</u></span><u> Corp. v. Cir. 2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The identification of analogous prior art is a factual question.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>In re GPAC</u>. Mso bidi font family:Arial'> challenge to the Board s determination that the toothbrush references are analogous art requires this court to review the Board s construction of the disputed claim term hair brush. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Cf.</u> <u>In re Paulsen</u>. 211 F.3d at 1372.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The broadest reasonable interpretation rule recognizes that before a patent is granted the claims are readily amended as part of the examination process. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Burlington Indus. v. <span class=SpellE>Quigg</span></u>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1958p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a long arm service of process case which requires us. The complaint alleges that Kiekert tortiously interfered with 2 Imo's attempt to sell its wholly owned Italian subsidiary to a French corporation that was one of Kiekert's competitors. The asserted mechanism by which the tort was accomplished was a series of letters sent by Kiekert to the Italian subsidiary and to the New York investmentfirm of C.S. The sale was never consummated because of these threats. Imo contends that personal jurisdiction over Kiekert was proper based upon its contacts with Imo in New Jersey and upon Kiekert's claimed commission of an intentional tort. The effects of which were allegedly felt by Imo in New Jersey. The defendant must have committed an intentional tort. The plaintiff must have felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum. The defendant must have expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum. The order of the district court will therefore be affirmed. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction is proper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011759.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's Accordingly. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1528.html">BILSTAD, ET AL. V. WAKALOPULOS, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Daniel N. <span class=SpellE>Christus</span></u> and <u>Robert W. Diehl</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Mark J. <span class=SpellE>Buonaiuto</span></u>. Argued for <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Howard S. <span class=SpellE>Wisnia</span></u>. 2003</span></st1:date><span style='font family:Arial'>) ( <u>Original Decision</u> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Board s claim construction was correct. BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent><span style='font family:Arial'>This interference was declared on March 30. Text indent:.5in'>a moveable member <u>manipulating objects
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-1185.html">BALDWIN HARDWARE V. FRANKSU ENTERPRISE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011202.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Network's principal place of business is in San Francisco. Pearson's principal place of business is in New York.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066c.html">FESTO CORPORATION V. SHOKETSU<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Glenn T. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Charles L. Pous</span></u><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Ja
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1585.html">TOM CUNNINGHAM V. LASER GOLF CORP.<BR></A><BR>
S findings are supported by substantial evidence. The device has a hollow plastic head that is not designed to impact golf balls. The device is used by golfers to practice and improve their golf swing with the aid of two light emitting diodes of different colors contained in the head. LASERSWING is registered on the Principal Register and Cunningham alleges a first use in 1993. S registration contains a typed drawing and states that the mark is for golf clubs.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1199.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1222.html">PPG V. GUARDIAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/98-1375.htm">98-1375 -- MED SAFE NORTHWEST INC. V. KOCKOS -- 01/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1522.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-4098a.htm">98-4098A -- BUZAS BASEBALL INC. V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA -- 09/02/1999<BR></A><BR>
It did not receive the proposal until February 1998. <p> A copy of the corrected order and judgment is attached. <p> Sincerely. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Buzas Baseball. The team was organized in 1993 and began using the name and logos at that time for both merchandising and promotional purposes. <p> Defendant. Defendant uses its marks for merchandising and promotional purposes. <p> Defendant learned plaintiff was using the Buzz logo in 1997 at an annual sports merchandising show held in Atlanta where plaintiff's merchandise was displayed. Various Salt Lake City media reports also indicated that plaintiff would discontinue using the logo and that the team owner was leaning towards renaming the team the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-4098.htm">98-4098 -- BUZAS BASEBALL INC. V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA -- 09/02/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Buzas Baseball. The team was organized in 1993 and began using the name and logos at that time for both merchandising and promotional purposes. <p> Defendant. Defendant uses its marks for merchandising and promotional purposes. <p> Defendant learned plaintiff was using the Buzz logo in 1997 at an annual sports merchandising show held in Atlanta where plaintiff's merchandise was displayed. Various Salt Lake City media reports also indicated that plaintiff would discontinue using the logo and that the team owner was leaning towards renaming the team the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1213.html">SOUTHWEST SOFTWARE V. HARLEQUIN INCORPORATED<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Amber L. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Scott R. With him on the brief was <u>Albert A. Jr.</u> Of counsel on the brief were <u>John J. The judgment was entered upon a jury verdict. ) is not invalid. (2) claim 1 of the '257 patent was directly infringed by Harlequin and ECRM. 1998). </p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0193p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was entered on July 2. Selling and/or offering to sell any merchandise bearing the FORD name and marks which has been purchased or otherwise obtained from any entity which is not licensed by Ford to distribute or sell such merchandise. Selling and/or offering to sell any merchandise bearing any marks which are confusingly similar to any of the FORD name and marks. Should Ford discover in the future that Mustangs Unlimited is advertising. Sell and/or offer to sell any merchandise bearing the FORD name and marks which has been purchased or otherwise obtained from any entity which is licensed by Ford to distribute or sell such merchandise. Ford moved in the district court to have the judgment set aside pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Ford also alleged that the trademarked Ford products sold by Mustangs are counterfeit that is. That others were inadvertent and had ceased by the time of the motion hearing. We also have the fact that this matter was filed. There [have] been continuing violations of the consent judgment and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1231.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of counsel were <u>Thomas Eugene Smith</u> and <u>James B. With him on the brief were <u>Albin F. This case was submitted for our decision following oral argument on April 4. S key factual findings relating to its obviousness analysis are not supported by substantial evidence. Because the Board erred in concluding that the claims would have been obvious as a matter of law. Kotzab was confronted with the problem of providing optimal temperature control for an injection molding method to ensure the quality of the final product on the one hand. He arrived at a solution which is embodied in claim 1 of the reexamination as follows:</p> <dir> <dir> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1241.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>Albin F. 627 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § . Because the Board s factual findings relating to its obviousness analysis are supported by substantial evidence. Because the Board did not err in concluding that the claims were unpatentable as obvious as a matter of law. <U>The Invention</P> </U><P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-4050.htm">97-4050 -- NOVELL INC. V. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO. -- 04/14/1998<BR></A><BR>
Michael Ross is the sole proprietor of Enhancement Software. StampIt was designed to work as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043654P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Determined that: (1) Blizzard's software end user license and terms of usage agreements were enforceable 2 Amici on Behalf of Appellants. Combs and Crittenden are computer programmers. Jung is a systems administrator. Internet Gateway is an Internet service provider based in St. Jung is also the president. Battle.net is a free service that allows owners of Blizzard games to play each other on their personal computers via the Internet. The various games have the capacity for and permit non Internet multi player gaming for a limited number of players who connect to each other via a local area computer network (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1447.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982791P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Porous Media Corporation and Pall Corporation are before us a third time. Porous was awarded a judgment of $7 million against Pall and successfully defended counterclaims asserted by Pall in the first of the cases. Claiming that Pall is liable for malicious prosecution for asserting the counterclaims in Porous I. That the counterclaims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1098.html">GUINN V. KOPF<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1091c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. With him on the brief was William LaMarca. Of counsel was Stephen Walsh. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Per Curiam (RADER.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1599.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Marcy Hogan Greer. Of counsel was Shafeeqa Watkins Giarratani. With him on the brief was Thomas L. Of counsel was Stephen Walsh. BACKGROUND I Trans Texas is the assignee of both the '461 patent and the '673 patent. The '673 patent is a continuation of the '461 patent. Which are nearly identical. '673 patent col.2 ll.27 37 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1101.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1573.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was William R. With him on the brief were John M. Said frame being connected to said support structure to be moveable about an axis of rotation spaced from said front toward said rear between a first position in which said endless belt is position[ed] for operation by a user positioned thereon and a second position in which said rear of said frame is positioned toward said support structure. Handle means associated with said support structure positioned for grasping by a user for moving said support structure with said tread base in said second position between a use position in which said support structure has said base positioned on said support surface for stably positioning said support structure on a support surface and a moving position in which said support structure is rotatably displaced from said use position. Roller means adapted to said base for engagement with said support surface when said support structure is reoriented to said moving position for movement of said support structure by the user on said support surface.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1184.html">BRUNING V. HIROSE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1507.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Michael T. With her on the brief was Stephen Walsh. An antivenom is created by injecting a small amount of the targeted venom into an animal such as a horse. The animal will suffer an immune response to the venom. Those antibodies can then be harvested from the animal's blood and used to treat humans who have been injected with venom from a snake bite. The v shaped portion of the Y shaped protein is called a F(ab)2 fragment. Each arm of the v shaped portion is called. The lower stem of the Y shaped antibody is called the Fc fragment and is not involved in antigen binding. Diagrams of an antibody and its components are provided below for reference. The diagram on the right shows two Fab fragments that are separated from the Fc region. Fab fragments have separate properties and utilities. Most commercially available antivenom products have consisted of a class of whole antibodies. There have also 2006 1507 2 been antivenom products that comprised only F(ab)2 fragments. Although antivenom products consisting of either IgG or F(ab)2 fragments are effective at binding to venom toxins.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3082_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The course title was the same as the book's. Taught by Ezekiel Morris though a prospective student might have thought that Vincent was the instructor. When Vincent discovered that the Association was continuing to print the book for use not only in the college courses but also in a self directed educational program it offers for real estate brokers. Morris have violated the federal copyright and trademark laws. These are just parts of the City Colleges' operations. As opposed to the larger institution (Harvard University) of which it is a component. So we have reformed the caption. (It is unclear whether the City Colleges or its governing body the Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 is the real party in interest. The complaint is fatally deficient. Is Vincent's contention that the Association violated the copyright laws by printing copies of her book after she withdrew consent. The license to print the book was oral. Then the Association would not have had authority to publish the book in the first place!
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD6343F0008C15FC882571A200744061/$file/0417496.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip Opinion page 5645. We explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D079531C495BC5E288256EF90055E54C/$file/0117424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the case was not ripe. That the District Court should have abstained from hearing the case. We hold that there was no personal jurisdiction over Appellants and reverse the District Court. BACKGROUND Yahoo! is an Internet service provider which has its principal place of business in Santa Clara. Nazi discussions have occurred in Yahoo!'s chat rooms and Nazi related paraphernalia have appeared for sale on its auction website. Demanding that Yahoo! prohibit the display of the Nazi materials because the practice was illegal in France. The court found jurisdiction was proper under Section 46 of France's New Code of Civil Procedure. Which are accessible in France. The imposition of penalties is provisional in YAHOO! Are still available through www.yahoo.com. Modified its hate speech policy to preclude use of its services to promote groups that are known for taking violent positions against others because of race or similar factors. Yahoo! filed a complaint in the Northern District of California requesting a declaration that the French court's orders of May 22 and November 20 were not recognizable or enforceable in the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1069.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claims to have obtained the copyright in a bankruptcy sale. Is making and selling copies of a modified version of the program. The modified program is a derivative work. Which it does not have. From ITOFCA. 2 No. 02 1069 ITOFCA was in 1986 a cooperative corporation owned by Ford. Registration is no longer required for a valid copyright. Among the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1311.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Henry J. Of counsel was Tara A. With him on the brief were Richard L. With him on the brief were George E. Also on the brief was Alan R. With him on the brief was Richard Margiano. This is a consolidated multidistrict patent infringement litigation. Metoprolol is a therapeutically active compound. Which can form salts by reaction with acids and is used in the treatment of angina. Metoprolol succinate is the salt of metoprolol with succinic acid. Characterized in that the active substance is metoprolol succinate
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were George M. With him on the brief were Stacey L. Of counsel was Mark A. Because we conclude that the district court erred in conducting a bench trial on the inventorship claim prior to a jury trial on the state law claims when there were common underlying factual issues. BACKGROUND Shum is an optical engineer who worked for many years in the field of optoelectric packaging technology. 1 Shum met Jean Marc Verdiell. Who is also an engineer experienced in the field of optoelectronics. Although Verdiell was still employed with SDL. Shum was named the sole inventor. During the Verdiell was named following months. Radiance was dissolved pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation. That patent Optoelectronic packages are devices that are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether service of process by an American plaintiff on an English defendant through regular mail to a post office box is valid under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents1 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact 5642 CENTER FOR BIO ETHICAL REFORM v. The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. We must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum. The banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. BACKGROUND Honolulu's aerial advertising Ordinance is part of a longstanding scheme aimed at regulating outdoor advertising in order to protect the critical visual landscape that has made the area famous. Is not disputed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Thomas W. With her on the brief were John M. The outermost layers of the skin and other stratifying squamous epithelia are composed of dead cells densely packed with a fibrous protein called keratin. Involucrin is a protein that interacts with keratin and other intracellular proteins to form a cross linked envelope within the dead cells to strengthen the plasma membrane of the cells. Crish's application discloses that Crish has isolated and sequenced the promoter sequence of hINV from plasmid pSP64I 3 H6B using standard molecular biology techniques.1 Crish determined that the hINV promoter Crish's application also sequence was approximately 2.5 kb (kilobases) in size. identified and numbered each nucleotide in the hINV promoter sequence and designated it as SEQ ID NO:1. Claims 53 55 on appeal are all independent and read as follows: 53. Familiarity with such subject matter is presumed and we will not go into detail except as necessary to understand this appeal. The microinjected hINV was isolated from the same plasmid pSP64I 3 H6B referenced in Crish's patent application.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Wilma A. Of counsel were Dennis R. With him on the brief were Thomas W. Five of these are at issue in this case. The PTO examiner initially rejected a number of these claims for failing the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because while each individual element was disclosed in that specification. The examiner chose representative claims for specific analysis and then concluded that the rest of the claims at issue suffered the same defect. 1 Hyatt was then directed to respond to the PTO's prima facie case. We decline to address it. 2006 1171 2 1 facie case for lack of written description was inadequate. DISCUSSION The basic question presented in this case is when and how the PTO may require additional information from an applicant when determining whether to reject an application based on lack of written description. Thus while the district court's opinion did not explicitly hold that MPEP § 2163.04(I)(B) is unlawful. Its decision must be understood to implicitly hold that compliance with that guideline is inadequate as a matter of law to establish a prima facie case and place the burden on the applicant to provide further information.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which opened in ACI was paid fees under the Management Contract until March February 1987. 2 Dezer/Reyes a ten year exclusive license to use ACI's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Alexander L. With him on the brief were Robert S. Of counsel on the brief was Ronald S. The NSAID is the active ingredient for reducing eye inflammation. Neither ingredient is water soluble. These complexes will eventually cause the mixture to look cloudy or lose its antibacterial properties. The appellees are collectively referred to as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Sydney O. Because the PTO's decision to grant Lacavera limited recognition was consistent with its regulations and supported by the record. Was substituted for James Toupin. May require them . . . to show that they are of good moral character and reputation and are possessed of the necessary qualifications to render to applicants or other persons valuable service. An individual must establish that she is
|
|
GECHTER V. DAVIDSON
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We reverse because the district court abused its discretion when it determined that Hansen is likely to succeed on the merits. The court stated that a preliminary injunction was warranted because Hansen had shown a probability of success on the merits. DISCUSSION [1] The central issue in this appeal is whether the grant of a preliminary injunction constitutes an abuse of discretion because Hansen failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits. In an Hansen later added a count for trademark infringement that is not pertinent to this appeal. 2 HANSEN BEVERAGE v. Probable success on the merits is established by a showing that the movant's trade dress is protectable (nonfunctional and distinctive). Is whether the district court erred in finding that Freek's trade dress creates a likelihood of confusion.5 [2] National contends that the district court erred in finding a likelihood of confusion because it improperly refused to give preclusive effect to findings by the District Court for the District of Nevada in Hansen Beverage Co. v.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were W. Affirming the examiner's rejection of appellants' application for a utility patent on grounds that the invention claimed would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The appeal was submitted for decision without oral argument on November 5. Because the Board's finding that the prior art suggested the desirability of the combination of shoe sole limitations claimed in appellants' patent application was supported by substantial evidence. Three limitations of this claim are at issue. Namely the limitations that: (A) the perimeter of the shoe is mostly open. Are hexagonal in shape. A figure from the '198 application is reproduced below. Figures from these patents are reproduced below. The orientation of the projected surfaces in these figures is different. We will refer to the orientation in the '198 application. The combined teachings of Bowerman and Pope would have suggested the shoe sole recited in claim 1 to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Pope establishes that shoe soles having studs embodying projected surfaces hexagonally shaped and oriented as recited in claim 1 are conventional.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. While others were more general. The district court concluded that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 519 (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Based on the Board's conclusion that the mark Muga sought to register was not sufficiently similar to Torres' marks as to cause a likelihood of confusion regarding the origin of Muga's goods bearing the mark on the application. I Muga is a Spanish winery that has been in existence since 1932 and has been selling wines in the United States under the TORRE MUGA mark since 1997. Torres is a Spanish winery that has been in existence since 1870 and has been selling wines in the United States under the TORRES mark since 1964. Alleging that the mark Muga sought to register was sufficiently similar to Torres' marks as to create a 05 1520 2 likelihood of confusion as to the origin of Muga's goods when applied to them. The Board considered the evidence submitted by Muga and Torres and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion. It found that only the first eight DuPont factors were relevant. The Board based that conclusion on its findings that the goods of both parties were identical as described in the registration applications (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Linda Moncys Isacson and Raymond T. Of counsel was Mary L. 282 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
|
|
LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDFfYW1vcG4ucGRm/03-7641_amopn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-7641%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTIyNTJfc28ucGRm/04-2252_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA0MzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0435-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Distinctive mark to an injunction against the user of a mark that is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1108.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>John M. Of counsel were <u>Maximilian R. 101 are closely related. <u>Process Control Corp. v. A patent application must adequately disclose the claimed invention so as to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation. <u>Enzo Biochem. If the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative. Lack of utility is a question of fact. The absence of enablement is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual inquiries. We exercise independent review over the conclusion of whether a disclosure is enabling. <u>Enzo</u>. S asserted utility. <u>Id.</u> Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to rely on the art known at the filing date. Swartz had not submitted evidence that the concept of the invention could have been practiced by a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention without undue experimentation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1583.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1548.html">LIPMAN, STEVEN E. V. DICKINSON, Q. TODD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was William K. With him on the brief were Albin F. Was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm.1 <p> BACKGROUND<p> The facts are contained in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the district court dated July 19. They are set out below. <p> Steven E. Lipman represented Ronald Wallace whose application for registration to practice before the PTO was disapproved on March 5. Wallace's application was denied despite the submission of seventeen letters and affidavits attesting to his character and reputation. These included four affidavits executed by attorneys who were members of the Vinson and Elkins (V&. Who was then an employee of that firm. Which was due to be filed on May 7. The draft appeal petition was sent <p> to Wallace for comment on April 27. E affidavits were not to be used
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4395.opa.html">SCULPTCHAIR, INC. V. CENTURY ARTS, LTD.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sculptchair. Is the owner and president of Sculptchair. Both of whom are also residents of Canada. Traveled to Florida for a one hour meeting in which the terms of the deal were finalized.<p> The contract granted an exclusive license to manufacture. A Canadian corporation of which Mary Bien and Phyliss Rich were the sole officers. Where it was signed by Phyliss Rich as President of that corporation. Were unable to reach a solution. The corporation was dissolved shortly thereafter.<p> Following the dissolution of Century Arts. The Florida Long Arm Statute<p> <p> When jurisdiction is based on a federal question arising under a statute that is silent regarding service of process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-3656.opa.html">SHUKLA V. BP EXPLORATION & OIL, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shukla v. Shukla's franchise was subject to a one year trial period. He was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTA1MjZfc28ucGRm/06-0526_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-4395.opa.html">SCULPTCHAIR, INC. V. CENTURY ARTS, LTD.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sculptchair. Is the owner and president of Sculptchair. Both of whom are also residents of Canada. Traveled to Florida for a one hour meeting in which the terms of the deal were finalized.<p> The contract granted an exclusive license to manufacture. A Canadian corporation of which Mary Bien and Phyliss Rich were the sole officers. Where it was signed by Phyliss Rich as President of that corporation. Were unable to reach a solution. The corporation was dissolved shortly thereafter.<p> Following the dissolution of Century Arts. The Florida Long Arm Statute<p> <p> When jurisdiction is based on a federal question arising under a statute that is silent regarding service of process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1056.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-14511.opn.html">PALMER V. BRAUN (4/9/2002, NO. 01-14511)<BR></A><BR>
The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction after determining that Palmer was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim. THE AVATAR COURSE</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0542n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Implicated in the present appeal and cross appeal are three separate decisions of the district court. Annuity Investors disagrees because it believes these fees are solely attributable to the legal malpractice of Price Heneveld. Annuity Investors has refused to pay the remaining balance and told Price Heneveld that it was dissatisfied with the amount charged and wanted to be refunded because Price Heneveld had committed malpractice. The understanding reached in these negotiations was summarized in an email memorandum Nos. 06 1666/1667 Price. The email stated in its entirety: I have now talked with John Gruber [Vice President of Annuity Investors]. He was interested in Rhoda's letter refusing to phase out the mark over a 3 to 5 year period. Price Heneveld moved for partial summary judgment on Annuity Investors' counterclaim on the grounds that it was barred by the period of limitations. Annuity Investors argued that the parties' negotiations were conducted in a manner to lead it to erroneously understand that their disputes had been resolved or preserved.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948700.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 and its mark LONE STAR STEAKS was likely to cause consumer confusion with LSS & S's LONE STAR CAFE mark.2 After reconsidering LSS & S's argument. We are now convinced that the district court procedurally overlooked LSS & S's position. We supplement our prior opinion and remand the case to the district court for a de novo consideration of whether or not continued use of both the LONE STAR STEAKS mark and the LONE STAR CAFE mark will likely cause consumer confusion. Because the district court found that LSS & S was not using its LONE STAR CAFE mark During the course of this litigation and appeal. It was unnecessary to consider whether Lone Star Steaks and its LONE STAR STEAKS mark was causing customer confusion with LSS & S's LONE STAR CAFE mark. This omission was erroneous. This Court has previously found that the resolution of one trademark infringement claim without regard for related claims of infringement is improper. When Lone Star Steaks filed its motion for summary judgment and since by this time LSS & S was using its LONE STAR CAFE mark.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTk0NTEgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/02-9451%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether the work for hire doctrine applies to works created by the principal employee of a corporation that was. The Court's principal ruling was that copyrights in most of the 70 dances in dispute belong to Defendants Appellees Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. Who is Graham's sole beneficiary under her will. We agree with the District Court that the work for hire doctrine was properly applied to dances created after 1966. On certain other aspects of the Court's judgment we conclude that a partial reversal or remand is required. That title is appropriate for the task this litigation presented to the District Court and now presents to this Court. The earliest account of this classic Greek myth is from Pherecydes. Many of the pertinent facts are obscured by inadequate record keeping. Graham was very successful. Initially known as the The Center was incorporated Graham Foundation for Martha Contemporary Dance. The corporation was renamed the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5110a.html">WATERVIEW MGMT CO V. RTC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1115.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The search did yield some records showing I and G may have purchased some cigarettes from an unknown source. Jurisdiction I and G contends that this court does not have jurisdiction because the district court never actually denied Lorillard a preliminary injunction. It generally does not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of the dissolution of a TRO. Whether the district court's comments are construed as an express denial of Lorillard's motion for preliminary injunctive relief or as having the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1281.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because Scallen and Knight's arguments are BACKGROUND The present appeals stem from a lawsuit filed by the University against Scallen and Knight seeking a declaration of ownership of various patents and applications related to beta alethine compounds and vitaletheine modulators as well as asserting breach of contract and interference with contractual relations claims. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1126.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1119.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Rebecca Edgar Melton. Of counsel was Marcy Hogan Greer. With her on the brief was Steven W. The parties are Michael Brown. The invention common to Brown and Barbacid is a method or assay for identifying compounds that inhibit farnesyl transferase (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2336.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4147.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Filed a lawsuit against two groups of defendants arising from the issuance of a patent for what is known as a bitless bridle. The first group of defendants was the United States Patent and Trademark Office and six individual patent examiners (the governmental defendants). The second group of defendants was Bitless Bridle. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (1) No. 04 4147 is plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order dismissing the private defendants. While this court's show cause order was pending. Plaintiff's appeal from this order is No. 05 4015. The appeals have been consolidated for procedural purposes. <hr> No. 04 4147 The gist of plaintiff's complaint against the private defendants was that they obtained the patent for the bitless bridle by false pretenses. None were licensed to do business and did not have offices. When jurisdiction is contested. All factual disputes are resolved in his favor. No. 05 4015 The thrust of plaintiff's claims against the governmental defendants was that as a result of ignorance and inadequate training.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953656.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shukla's franchise was subject to a one year trial period. He was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1300.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Joseph Angland. Of counsel on the brief was Elliot M. With him on the brief were Christopher S. Of counsel on the brief were Roy E. Of counsel on the brief were John W. With him on the brief were Morgan Chu and Jason D. Of counsel on the brief was Gordon A. With him on the brief were Steven M. There is no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992432.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 counsel's name is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1304.html">ROWE V. DROR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991010.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alleging that the appellees have engaged in a variety of activities constituting unfair trade practices. Appellant Whitfield alleges that the district court committed reversible error when it granted summary judgment to all appellees on the basis of its ruling that Whitfield's evidence of damages was too speculative to support a jury verdict. Appellant also appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court to all appellees on the claim for civil conspiracy on the basis of its ruling that Whitfield was required to demonstrate that the appellees conspired for the purposes of injuring Whitfield in particular and on Whitfield's cause of action seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Candace Pratt (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/012328P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GSB is a debt collection agency incorporated in Nebraska. The parties informed the court that there were fifty one other FDCPA cases against GSB in the district and that all would be affected by the decision in this case. The other cases were later gathered together for management purposes in a consolidated file and stayed pending the decision in this case. United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 2 Peters argued to the district court that his VA contained a literally false statement because service by constable was not GSB's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5430a.html">ERIC ELDRED, ET AL V. JANET RENO<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle </P> <P>Forum Education &. Were on the brief of amici </P> <P>curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. </P> <P>Ogden. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher </P> <P>wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) </P> <P>For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from </P> <P>75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 </P> <P>years from the year of creation. For which the </P> <P>initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is </P> <P>extended from 47 to 67 years. (L 290) 9.</P> <P> The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional </P> <P>extensions of the copyright term. </P> <P>term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the </P> <P>Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no </P> <P>identifiable author. The </P> <P>CTEA amends this scheme by adding 20 years to the term of </P> <P>every copyright.</P> <P> The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of </P> <P>the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is </P> <P>unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1486.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D3706DE514AF63588256BBF007EB1DE/$file/0056192.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background The Cavaliers created copyrighted works involving several characters who are featured in children's stories. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1369.html">MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY V. BARR<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-4467.opa.html">LIMELIGHT PROD. V. LIMELITE STUDIOS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Limelight Prod. v. The district court entered summary judgment against each garnishee insurance company.<p> Appellants Gulf and Select allege the district court erred in determining the verdict award based on Defendants's ill gotten profits was covered under the policies. PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Limelite Studios and Limelite Rentals were related entities operating from the same offices. Neither Defendant produced films or videotapes.<p> Limelite Studios was formed and began using the Limelite name in 1982. The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment alleging Gulf and Select were responsible to pay the damages awarded against Defendants at trial. Whether the insurance policies cover ill gotten profits as damages even though strictly speaking they are not losses. Damages<p> <p> We find no merit to the argument that ill gotten profits are not damages covered by the insurance policies. Congress recognized that in this kind of lawsuit a plaintiff's resulting lost profits often will be difficult or impossible to establish.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C58EEDE5499DB9F988256E5A00707B7F/$file/9956856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: As is often true in the field of intellectual property. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 of the Patent Act. Matsco Financial Corporation (Petitioners) have a security interest in a patent developed by Cybernetic Services. The patent is for a data recorder that is designed to capture data from a video signal regardless of the horizontal line in which the data is located. Petitioners' security interest in the patent was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4276A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 is hereby amended as follows: On page 9. The second to last sentence of the first paragraph (beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1450.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
|
 |
ERIC ELDRED, ET AL. V. JANET RENO
With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education &. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Ogden. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. (L 290) 9.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Argued for appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Raymond W. We hold that the Board impermissibly relied on its own expertise in determining the question of derivation and that the Board's conclusion is not supported by substantial record evidence. Typically logs are cut lengthwise into a pair of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Unless Anheuser were to respond within five days. Seeking a declaration that Anheuser's use of the penguin in the Bud Ice campaign was neither infringing nor diluting Supreme's rights in the penguin trademarks. DISCUSSION We will reverse the district court's refusal to apply the first filed rule only if the district court abused its discretion. The district court noted that Anheuser was on notice that Supreme was going to file suit. The district court noted that Anheuser's action was for a declaratory judgment. This short
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Edward M. Of counsel were Renee M. With him on the brief was Joseph R. This is a patent case. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That CCBill and CWIE were immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims based on the Communications Decency Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ticknor was granted a non exclusive license to use the Econo Lodge mark in connection with the motel. Choice was to integrate the motel into its national advertising and reservations system and provide other assistance. Which was a pre printed standard form instrument drafted by Choice. Including any claim that this Agreement or any part of this Agreement is invalid. Will be sent to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator will apply the substantive laws of Maryland. Any arbitration will be conducted at our headquarters office in Maryland. The Franchise Agreement also contained a choice of law provision that stated:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Nathaniel L. With him on the brief was Brendan E. Patent and Trademark Office (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).1 Google argues that we lack jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction to the extent it enforces unregistered copyrights. Registration is generally a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit for copyright infringement. As we will further explain below. Are connected to networks known collectively as the
|
|
CABINET VISION V. CABNETWARE
|
|
PURDUE PHARMA L.P. V. FAULDING INC.
With them on the brief was Todd A. With him on the brief were Paul H. Of counsel on the brief was E. Of counsel were Jack B. Which is drawn to methods of treating pain in patients by administering an opioid. 360 patent but that the claims were invalid. S sleep and subjects the patient to cycles of pain that are difficult to control.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This Lease will be automatically renewed for subsequent one year terms upon the same terms and conditions. It being the intent of the parties that the term of this Contract will run concurrently with the term of the Lease executed as of even date herewith. This Contract will be automatically renewed and the term of the Contract extended for subsequent one year terms. Contractor fully acknowledges that this Contract with Contractee is a separate and distinct contract and is not associated with any other agreements. Contractor further acknowledges that Contractee is the retailer of the fuel facilty to be operated hereunder and that this Contract does not give any rights to the Contractor as a fuel retailer. That may have existed between Contractee and Contractor. Contractor agrees that all funds collected for fuel sales are the property of the Contractee and further agrees to act as the agent of Contractee in the collection and safe keeping of all monies collected for sale of fuel. Main explained that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As such was responsible for the overall operations of the company. Were initial investors in (1) The judgments in favor of Cassandra and John O'Tool on their breach of employment contract claims were not appealed.
Horizon. Pepper's initial goal was to manufacture and sell aluminum jon boats (a/k/a utility boats) he had designed. Was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter and conclude that we are without appellate jurisdiction for the same reasons stated by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
|
|
SHUKLA V. BP EXPLORATION & OIL, INC.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Shukla v. Shukla's franchise was subject to a one year trial period. He was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1NjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5563-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispute was sparked by 24/7's production of a cover version of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1553.html">WINNER INTERNATIONAL ROYALTY CORP. V. CHING-RONG WANG<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief was <U>Charles L. With him on the brief were <U>Mary L. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Charles R. ) would not have been obvious in light of the cited prior art. <U>See</U> <U>Winner Int l Royalty Corp. v. The 411 application are owned by Winner International Royalty Corp. (". This case was submitted for our decision following oral argument on August 2. The commercial embodiment of which is the original steering wheel anti theft device known as ". Is named as the inventor in the 047 patent. Commercial embodiments of which are known as ". The 047 patent discloses an automobile anti theft device that is mounted across the steering wheel and is locked in place by use of a self locking ratcheting mechanism. The ratcheting mechanism is different from the dead bolt used in Johnson and so the 047 patent may be thought of as an improvement over Johnson. While Johnson s dead bolt system is more secure. It is not as convenient as the ratcheting mechanism claimed in the 047 patent because a key is required to lock the Johnson device in place while the 047 patent discloses a device that locks itself without use of a key.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1307.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/023450np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Petitioner Victoria Zdrok is a model. The Ohio court found that Zdrok was not properly served. Victoria's Secret's motion for reconsideration of the order vacating the default judgment was denied on April 30. At 241 (2d ed. 1984) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/010A5261AE3A08E788256AB4006DD2D5/$file/0055781.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1489.html">FLEX-FOOT, INC. V. CRP, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Darrell L. With him on the brief were <u>Gary A. Its holding that Springlite is collaterally estopped from presenting its patent invalidity defenses and counterclaim. We affirm.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1560.html">FISKARS, INC. V. HUNT MANUFACTURING<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>Joan L. Of counsel was <U>Jefferson Perkins</U>.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1168.html">MERCK V. TEVA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Nicolas G. Garber</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Paul D. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Maria Luisa Palmese</u> and <u>William G. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Stephen F. That the patent is not invalid.<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-4467.opa.html">LIMELIGHT PROD. V. LIMELITE STUDIOS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Limelight Prod. v. The district court entered summary judgment against each garnishee insurance company.<p> Appellants Gulf and Select allege the district court erred in determining the verdict award based on Defendants's ill gotten profits was covered under the policies. PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Limelite Studios and Limelite Rentals were related entities operating from the same offices. Neither Defendant produced films or videotapes.<p> Limelite Studios was formed and began using the Limelite name in 1982. The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment alleging Gulf and Select were responsible to pay the damages awarded against Defendants at trial. Whether the insurance policies cover ill gotten profits as damages even though strictly speaking they are not losses. Damages<p> <p> We find no merit to the argument that ill gotten profits are not damages covered by the insurance policies. Congress recognized that in this kind of lawsuit a plaintiff's resulting lost profits often will be difficult or impossible to establish.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/013390.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the District Court should not have denied Toys' request for jurisdictional discovery. In the event the District Court finds that it does have jurisdiction. Of which seven are located in New Jersey. There are Imaginarium shops within 175 of the Toys
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1242.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Jeffrey H. Of counsel was Gongjun Ji. With her on the brief were John M. Because the Board correctly determined that the error upon which Serenkin bases his reissue application is not correctable error under 35 U.S.C. § 251. No drawings were included with the application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022497p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an approximately two minute segment of a movie. Video Pipeline challenges the injunction on the ground that its internet use of the clip previews is protected by the fair use doctrine and. Inc. and Miramax Film Corp.1 may not receive the benefits of copyright protection because they have engaged in copyright misuse. The requested trailer is then
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062484p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that the sentence was unreasonably low. We will vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. I. Background Dmitri Kononchuk is a permanent resident alien. Dolgosheev did not know that the software was counterfeit. When he discovered that it was. Kononchuk and Dolgosheev together 3 are responsible to Microsoft for this loss.1 Law enforcement officials first questioned Dolgosheev on July 17. He was cooperative from the start. He was charged by information with four counts: (1) conspiracy to engage in trademark counterfeiting and copyright infringement under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Dolgosheev was a minor when the criminal activity began and fell under the influence of Kononchuk. This was the amount to which the parties stipulated for sentencing purposes. 4 1 five years probation and ordered him to pay $265. Was the retiring CEO of two Fortune 500 companies. Containing the same four counts that were brought against Dolgosheev. His total offense level was 15. Kononchuk's advisory Guidelines range was 18 to 24 months of imprisonment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1278.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Linda Moncys Isacson and <u>Henry G. Interferences 2003) ( <u>Final Judgment</u> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Board s conclusion that Sullivan s concession on priority allowe
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-14511.opn.html">PALMER V. BRAUN (4/9/2002, NO. 01-14511)<BR></A><BR>
The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction after determining that Palmer was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim. THE AVATAR COURSE</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Neal S. Of counsel on the brief were Maurice M. Of counsel was Scott E. With him on the brief were James A. Of counsel on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. With him on the brief was Joshua R. Of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel was Herbert C. With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief was Richard J. Of counsel on the brief were William J. With him on the brief were Kurt M. Of counsel on the brief were Ned A. John Will Ongman. With him on the brief was Alice O. Of counsel on the brief was Stephan E. With him on the brief was Mary Jo Boldingh. Of counsel on the brief was Charles F. Of counsel with him on the brief were Patrick G. Of counsel on the brief was John P. With him on the brief were Frank L. Of counsel on the brief were Jeremy P. With him on the brief were Joseph A. With him on the brief were Matthew S. With him on the brief was David R. Of counsel on the brief were Denise W. With him on the brief were John C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022251.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Sterling Acceptance Corporation appeals from the summary judgment entered against it on its federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.1 The pertinent underlying facts are adequately set forth in the district court's order. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1143.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1508.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. It also provided a copy of its published U.S. patent application describing the device as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5814F4959DB08678882571A80075BE54/$file/0415577.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Pebble Beach is a well known golf course and resort located in Monterey County. Caddy's business operation is located on a cliff overlooking the pebbly beaches of England's south shore. The name of Caddy's operation is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1090.html">SHINPEI OKAJIMA V. JOEL BOURDEAU<BR></A><BR>
<u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>This is a patent interference case concerning the issue of obviousness.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1198.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Were not properly put in evidence. Which was heavily based upon those marks. Was deficient and had to be dismissed.* Because Bueno Foods failed to offer proof as required by the Board's regulations and our precedent. For the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the alternative evidence that was submitted. Bueno Foods filed a notice of opposition on the basis that La Tortilla's proposed mark was confusingly similar to several of its marks for tortillas and other goods. No testimony was taken by either party. Arguing that they were not admissible evidence because they did not show the current status of. A party that wishes to rely on its ownership of a Federal registration in an opposition proceeding must make the registration of record by offering evidence sufficient to show that the registration is still subsisting. Registrations not offered into evidence in compliance with this regulation are generally not considered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/551B0F46B06C491A882571A00054F840/$file/0535153.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where hazardous substances disposed of by Teck have come to be located. We decide today whether a citizen suit based on Teck's alleged non compliance with the Order is a domestic or an extraterritorial application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We address Teck's argument that it is not liable for having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2431.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No written agreement was reached. Some remnants of this litigation were still ongoing. Zelinski was at a bowling pro shop and discovered a Pin Breaker box that he didn't recognize. The design of the Pin Breaker logo was different. The ball in the box was a low quality Columbia second. Zelinski investigated and found out that Columbia was behind the Pin Breaker box and had proceeded full steam ahead with producing balls under the Pin Breaker name. Columbia even told Kwon not to contact Zelinski because it was in charge of the Pin Breaker line. 4 Nos. 02 2431 & 02 2574 Around the time of Zelinski's investigation. It was a big one the district court eliminated the punitive damages award.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1531.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Margin bottom:.0001pt'><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>on the brief were <u>John M. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Charles C. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2>This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in a reexamination proceeding. It was common for a multiple user computer system to be arranged so that each user would interface with a mainframe computer by using a so called dumb terminal. Which would run the user applications.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The mainframe computer would receive input from and provide output to users through the dumb terminals.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The user applications run by the mainframe computer would access data that was stored in a database residing on the mainframe.</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 style='mso layout grid align:auto. The 989 patent describes a network in which the processing of user applications is distributed among several computers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In the 989 patent system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1340.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0882p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The underlying action is Acierno's request for declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for the County's alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994).[fn1] Presently before us is the County's appeal from an order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting Acierno's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction directing the County to issue Acierno a building permit for development of a shopping mall. The district court also concluded that Acierno would suffer irreparable harm unless the County was compelled to issue the building permit and halt its interference with Acierno's development. The County argues Acierno failed to show he will be irreparably harmed unless a preliminary injunction issues against the County. A primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is maintenance of the status quo until a decision on the merits of a case is rendered. There is no evidence in this record to show that a delay in issuance of the building permit until this case can be decided on its merits would cause irreparable harm to Acierno.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1826.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we find that all claims\ against both Lycos and Terra Networks were properly dismissed for\ failure to state a claim. The disposition of the claims against\ Terra Networks is the same.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote3 = '<span class=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/001598.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. TMC was located outside of Pittsburgh in Ambridge. TMC was operating at a net loss caused by meeting the demands of a customer base that exceeded the processing and delivery capacities of the Ambridge facility. Which is about an hour's drive northwest of Ambridge. The Borden plant had an insufficient customer base and was slated to be sold. The Borden Youngstown facility was generally a superior facility from an operational standpoint and the wages paid to the Youngstown production workers wer e significantly less than those paid to the workers in Ambridge. The stipulated purchase price for the Y oungstown facility was approximately $1. Was dependent upon TMC first obtaining bank financing for the deal. TMC has now ceased operations. 3 was in turn contingent upon the existence of a stable. Though Byers noted that since Borden was the employer of Local 377. Local 205 was represented by its principal officer. The facts of the meeting are in dispute. It is clear that there were strong words exchanged. No work or services presently performed or hereafter assigned to the collective bargaining unit . . . will be subcontracted . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/023619P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have found none. To support the District Court's finding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1040p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a 1980 contract between the parties and a 1983 amendment thereto conveyed to American Cyanamid Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1425.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F14E7F004AB341A88256E5A00707CC2/$file/0035048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ticknor was granted a non exclusive license to use the Econo Lodge mark in connection with the motel. Choice was to integrate the motel into its national advertising and reservations system and provide other assistance. Which was a pre printed standard form instrument drafted by Choice. Including any claim that this Agreement or any part of this Agreement is invalid. Will be sent to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator will apply the substantive laws of Maryland. Any arbitration will be conducted at our headquarters office in Maryland. The Franchise Agreement also contained a choice of law provision that stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1060.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bohan & Associates were on brief for appellant. Epstein and Isaacson & Raymond were on brief for appellee. * Of the Eleventh Circuit. This is an appeal from a Maine District Court Per Curiam finding of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in determining that there was a likelihood of trademark confusion. The determination of likelihood of trademark confusion is one of fact that is to be set aside on appellate review only if clearly erroneous. We have reviewed the parties and record on appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1323.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>David . Of counsel on the brief were <U>P. With him on the brief were <U>Jonathan I. Of counsel on the brief were <U>C. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Joseph . Of counsel on the brief were <U>Bruce M. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Joseph Kattan</U>.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0992p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a 1980 contract between the parties and a 1983 amendment thereto conveyed to American Cyanamid Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1349.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1321.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Mary L. Johnston's patent application is for large diameter spiral pipe. The claims at issue are directed to the spiral pipes themselves. The following claims are representative: 1. 147 to McDonald shows a spirally wound silo of about 21 feet in diameter wherein sheet steel is wound into a helical configuration using guides and crimping rollers. The edges are then welded together to form the wall of the silo. Constructed from strip metal wound into a spiral pattern and butt welded together. 05 1321 2 Also cited by the examiner was a brochure for a manufacturing system sold by PRD Cortec. Are described for use in low cost housing units.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1329.html">SCHENDEL V. CURTIS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-6809.man.html">ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The issue presented in this case is whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-5233.htm">99-5233 -- JOHN ZINK CO. V. ZINK -- 02/27/2001<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Plaintiff John Zink Company was founded in 1929 by John Steele Zink. The father and son were plaintiff's sole shareholders. All of plaintiff's shares of stock were sold for $40. 000 was paid for the physical assets and $29. 000 was paid
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40131A1D6CE55DBE88256EA100839DF4/$file/0256197o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. If California's negligence and public nuisance law were so unsettled as to allow for the majority's creative interpretation of California law. We should have certified the issues to the California Supreme Court. A This is indeed a tragic case. A mentally troubled man who was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun. He was armed with a number of firearms. Is not against Furrow or even against the entities that sold the weapons to Furrow. A secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms. Plaintiffs do not allege that Glock1 did anything illeGlock is the manufacturer of one of the guns that Furrow used to injure his victims. Glock is sometimes used as a shorthand reference to all the remaining defendants. 1 6854 ILETO v. Plaintiffs allege that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1076.html">JOHNSON & JOHNSTON V. R.E. SERVICE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1129.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1120.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>John M. Claiming Mutated Recombinant Collagens. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Independent claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter:</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin top:0in. Wherein said first non natural site specific proteolytic agent recognition site is located between said collagen chain a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1755p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY CSB is a New Jersey chartered. It has been selling CollegeSure(R) CDs which are deposit contracts designed to provide sufficient funds to cover future costs of college education. We deal only with the second action and thus our further references are to that case. Was unconstitutional. Because the abrogation was not a proper exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers. It also pleaded a common law tort of unfair competition but we will not discuss that claim further as the district court dismissed it. Was an unconstitutional attempt to abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court found that the constructive waiver doctrine did not apply because Florida Prepaid was engaging in a core government function. CSB appealed from the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim to this court.2 We will affirm the district court's holding that the TRCA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment powers as applied to the present case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2364.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The main issue is whether this action arises under federal patent laws. We conclude that further proceedings are required. The first document was an Exclusive License Agreement (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001571.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Footland is a Caucasian male who unsuccessfully sought the position of Administrative Patent Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1048.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1182.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will &. Of counsel was <U>Paul Devinsky</U>.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1834p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is that Sun has made an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1640.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Representing the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1545.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition Is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Klein submitted his notice of appeal for review of the denial of his sixth petition which was denied on March 28. That this notice was untimely. Klein should have filed his appeal within sixty days of the date of denial of Mr. Klein was seeking relief for mistakes of a type not usually afforded protection under Rule 60. Cir. 1998). 04 1545 2 This appeal is the latest stage of a protracted litigation before the PTO. Klein's registration could have been reinstated as early as 1989 had he followed the PTO's procedure for reinstatement. Have resulted in his reinstatement. It is clear to this court that no further avenues of litigation would be fruitful to Mr. Any further filings on the body of facts already in the 04 1545 3 record will be considered frivolous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0011p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are Detroit area real estate developers who brought suit against Crosswinds Communities and its principal shareholder. Which was The Honorable James L. Finding that they had been prejudiced by unnecessary delay between the time the plaintiffs had learned that construction was planned (or. The time that construction was undertaken) and the time that the complaint was filed. Even though the action was filed within the three year statute of limitations provided by the Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The dispositive question is whether the equitable doctrine of laches can be held to trump the statutorily prescribed period for filing suit under § 507(b). To the extent that the plaintiffs in this case are seeking only monetary damages and injunctive relief. To the extent that the relief sought is destruction of the condominium complex that allegedly infringes the plaintiffs' copyright. The facts before us suggest that this is indeed the extraordinary case in which the defense of laches is properly interposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3470A4422044C7EA88256A6200834EE3/$file/9956856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: As is often true in the field of intellectual property. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 of the Patent Act. Matsco Financial Corporation (Petitioners) have a security interest in a patent developed by Cybernetic Services. The patent is for a data recorder that is designed to capture data from a video signal regardless of the horizontal line in which the data is located. Petitioners' security interest in the patent was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTk0NTEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-9451%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether the work for hire doctrine applies to works created by the principal employee of a corporation that was. The Court's principal ruling was that copyrights in most of the 70 dances in dispute belong to DefendantsAppellees Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. Who is Graham's sole beneficiary under her will. We agree with the District Court that the work for hire doctrine was properly applied to dances created after 1966. On certain other aspects of the Court's judgment we conclude that a partial reversal or remand is required. That title is appropriate for the task this litigation presented to the District Court and now presents to this Court. The earliest account of this classic Greek myth is from Pherecydes. Many of the pertinent facts are obscured by inadequate record keeping. Graham was very successful. The Center was incorporated in Initially known as the Martha Graham Foundation for Contemporary Dance. The corporation was renamed the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1621.html">ARJUN SINGH V. ANTHONY J. BRAKE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>R. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Thomas E. Ciotti</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brie
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034473.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because there is insufficient evidence to establish the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/99-5430b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional extensions of the copyright term. In 1976 the Congress altered the way the term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no identifiable author. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-6809.man.html">ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The issue presented in this case is whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1463.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>Albin F. Of counsel was <U>Nancy C. 42 45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1994). <U>See</U> <U>Ex parte Petrolite Corp.</U>. Because the Board erred in concluding that the appealed claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The patent at issue in this appeal was initially assigned to Petrolite Corporation. That reexamination was subsequently merged with another reexamination proceeding brought by a different party. Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic gas found naturally in crude oil. Hydrogen sulfide vapors are slowly emitted from these liquids at all stages of production. They pose a serious health problem. <U>See</U> <U>id.</U> The claims at issue are directed to processes and compositions for controlling these emissions. Claims 1 9 are process claims. Ll. 7 12.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional extensions of the copyright term. In 1976 the Congress altered the way the term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no identifiable author. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/9_opinions/92-1225.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1604.html">RONALD A. HITZEMAN V. WILLIAM J. RUTTER<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1314.html">HILL-ROM COMPANY V. KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Rebecca Simmons</u>. It is the owner of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1299.html">CLEARSTREAM WASTEWATER SYSTEMS, INC V. HYDRO-ACTION, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Ernest Randall Smith</u>. Arguing that the district court erred by limiting its construction of means plus function claim language to exclude from coverage a corresponding structure that was in the prior art. The judgment of the district court is therefore vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings. </p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1267.html">S. SHEFFIELD EATON V. JOSEPH T. EVANS, JR.<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>Charles L. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Peter J. On the brief was <u>Roger N. Of counsel were <u>Dale B. Which was filed on February 12. The technology involves a memory cell that can store data after its power is removed without requiring the data to be periodically refreshed. A sense amplifier was never part of. The PTO Board was persuaded by Kinney
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1259.html">ARJUN SINGH V. ANTHONY J. BRAKE<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Sharon E. With her on the brief were <u>Thomas E. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Robert P. S key findings underlying its conclusion that Singh failed to prove conception of the subject matter of the interference prior to the effective filing date of Brake were unsupported by substantial evidence. We remand for determination of those issues as well.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1042.html">VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP. V. TITAN WHEEL<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief were <U>Ronald L. With him on the brief was <U>Patricia L. Maintenance and repair in both manufacture and installation to be as simple as possible so that the likelihood of problems is greatly reduced.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1035.html">PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL V. J.E.M. AG SUPPLY<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Daniel J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Herbert H. With him on the brief was <u>S. </p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1498.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of counsel was Thomas A. With him on the brief were Albin F. We reverse.</p> <p>I</p> <p>The invention at issue in this case is. Bag O Fun(tm) have undisputedly been well received by consumers. A continuation application was filed (the instant application). Again the Examiner's rejection was appealed to the Board. 72 through 81 are at issue in this appeal. Independent claim 74 is perhaps most representative:</p> <p>74. Comprising:</p> <p>a flexible waterproof plastic trash or leaf bag having </p> <p>an outer surface which is premanufactured orange in color for the user to simulate the general appearance of the outer skin of a pumpkin. </p> <p>wherein when said trash or leaf bag is filled with trash filling material and closed. Have ". Have openings suitable for filling with trash material. The bag must have a generally rounded appearance. Describing a bag apparatus wherein the bag closure is accomplished by the use of folds or gussets in the bag material. Holding that they would have been obvious in light of the conventional trash bags in view of the Holiday and Shapiro references.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1349.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1325.html">PERSEPTIVE BIOSYSTEMS, INC. V. PHARMACIA BIOTECH,<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Thomas H. Of counsel was <u>Scott H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>David S. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>Lee Carl Bromberg</u>. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Kenneth R. Are concerned with high speed chromatography. The defenses that the patents were invalid for failure to name the correct inventors. That they were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct practiced by the named inventors during prosecution. The district court ruled on cross motions for summary judgment on the question of whether the patents were invalid for failure to list the correct inventive entity. <u>See</u> <u>PerSeptive Biosystems. The district court concluded that there was ". That the inventorship was incorrect. This court held that section 256 authorizes correction of inventorship when there is no deceptive intent on the part of the omitted inventors and does not require inquiry into the intent of the originally named inventors. Because this holding was contrary to the understanding of the district court and the parties at the time of the <u>PerSeptive II</u> decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1258.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Nancy J. Claims 1 and 15 are the only claims on appeal. Which comprises rubbing into the scalp the ointment wherein the active ingredient </p> <p>8 hydroxy quinoline sulfate 0.3% is carried in a petrolatum and lanolin base.". Are suspect because ". Baldness is generally accepted in the art as being incurable . . . .". Offered no proof that such an off set occurs and has disclosed that this is only speculation.". Scalp is the skin of the head.". There is no per se requirement for clinical evidence to establish the utility of any invention". The examples in Cortright's application are objective evidence. Cortright did not prevail because the board found a new ground for rejecting the claims: that they are based on a non enabling disclosure in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112. The board explained that claim 1 is not enabled because it claims ". That is. The board's rejection was not based on complete non enablement. There is no evidence of record that the resultant hair growth is due to (i) the stimulation of the papilla.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1076.html">RODIME PLC V. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were Thomas R. Also of counsel on the brief were John C. With him on the brief were Gerald T. The patent is directed to the miniaturization of hard drive technology from 51/4 inches to 31/2 inches. Disk drives incorporate stainless steel components where strength is critical and aluminum components elsewhere to minimize overall weight. The disk itself will expand radially outward from the hub. The head will not find the correct track position to retrieve information. <p> To solve this problem. The thermal compensation system is built into the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1564.html">MENTOR V. QUICKTURN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1512.html">CELERITAS V. ROCKWELL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1466.html">PANNU V. IOLAB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1438.html">AKRON V. EXXEL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1347.html">DOW CHEMICAL V. EXXON CORP.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1308.html">ADT CORP V. LYDALL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1302.html">COOPER V. GOLDFARB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1225.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1219.html">SCHULZE V. GREEN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1202.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1199.html">GOODYEAR TIRE V. HERCULES TIRE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1173.html">NIKE, INC. V. WAL-MART<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1007.html">WRIGHT V. OSTEONICS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1550.html">ODDZON V. JUST TOYS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1536.html">BRADLEY V. CHIRON CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1512.html">ESTEE LAUDER, INC. V. L'OREAL, S.A.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1339.html">KRIDL AND GOODMAN V. MCCORMICK<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1307.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1233.html">STARK V. ADV. MAGNETICS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1182.html">POLYMER TECH. V. BRIDWELL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1171.html">AMERICAN PERMAHEDGE, INC. V. BARCANA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1168.html">LOCKWOOD V. AMERICAN AIRLINES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1130.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1104.html">HOECHST-ROUSSEL PHARM. V. LEHMAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1066.html">HESS V. ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1052.html">WIENER V. NEC ELECTRONICS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1046.html">KOLMES & PLEMMONS V. WORLD FIBERS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1005.html">MINCO, INC. V. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1002.html">YORK PRODUCTS V. CENTRAL TRACTOR FARM<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1511.html">EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. GOODYEAR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1471.html">BIO-TECHNOLOGY V. GENENTECH<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1424.html">NOVO NORDISK V. GENENTECH, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1418.html">YOSHIHIRO V. SOMPONG WATTANASIN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1410.html">DUPONT V. BRISTOL-MYERS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1380.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1337.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1331.html">BRAVO SYSTEMS V. CONTAINMENT TECH.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1093.html">MAGNIVISION, INC. V. BONNEAU COMPANY<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1085.html">UNISPLAY V. AMERICAN ELECTRONIC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1038.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94o1249.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1498.html">JURGENS V. CBK<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1495.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1472.html">HOECHST CELANESE V. BP CHEMICALS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1524.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Raymond T. 102(b).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We find that the Board s decision is supported by substantial evidence and accordingly affirm. </p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin left:.75in. This process is called amplification. Additionally. Some RNA strands may be difficult to detect in cells.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>A process called normalization enhances experimenters ability to detect the RNA that is expressed at low levels.<span style='mso bidi font weight:bold'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%. The 608 application contained 20 claims.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Claims 1 18 are drawn to a method of amplifying RNA.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='mso bidi font weight: bold'>Claim 1 is representative of the method claims 1 18 and reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin top:0in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1483.html">INLAND STEEL COMPANY V. LTV STEEL COMPANY, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Michael D. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Deanna L. In which Inland Steel Company accused USX Corporation of patent infringement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>USX appeals from a decision of the district court denying its motion for attorney fees and costs based on the district court s ruling that USX was not a prevailing party. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We reverse the district court s ruling on USX s status as a prevailing party and remand for the district court to determine whether USX is entitled to attorney fees and costs.</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. The PTO determined that the patents were invalid and canceled the patents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Inland Steel appealed from the PTO s determination with respect to certain of the claims. It denied USX s motion for entry of judgment on its counterclaims of patent invalidity on the ground that the counterclaims were moot in light of the PTO s decision.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The court also denied USX s motion for attorney fees and costs on the ground that USX was not a prevailing party. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In a mi
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1151.html">JOHN M. TASKETT V. DALE DENTLINGER<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Thomas J. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Jeffrey D. Taskett
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1089.html">PSC COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. V. FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Kenneth D. Line height:200%'>The United States Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) issued the 239 patent for a Cam Type Retainer Clip for Heat Sinks for Electronic Integrated Circuits. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The 239 patent was assigned to PSC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The 239 patent covers a small but significant component of a complex technology product the microchip.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Like many electronic components. Line height:200%'>The 239 patent describes an invention for securing a heat sink to a chip using a cam type retainer clip.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Claim 1 of the 239 patent claims:</p> <p class=Quote>In a heat sink assembly providing cooling to an electroni
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1037.html">SHU-HUI CHEN AND VITTORIO FARINA V. HERVER BOUCHARD<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Lisa B. Argued for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Herbert H. Lim</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Ross J. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Board s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law. Which was a continuation in part of application U.S.S.N. 08/006. Which was in turn a continuation of application U.S.S.N. 07/907. 1992.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Bouchard application was filed December 8. Was accorded the benefit of the filing date of Bouchard s French application (No. 92 14813). was directed entirely to taxol derivatives and derivatives of baccatin III (a precursor of taxol) having fluorine in place of taxol s 7 hydroxy group. Described methods purportedly useful for the synthesis of those derivatives by fluorinating taxol derivatives with (die
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3171.html">GENE M. MUNSON V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Martha B. Acting General Counsel.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Jeffrey A. 2002) ( Final Decision ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board dismissed Munson s appeal as untimely because it was filed over t
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1561.html">SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION V. DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant Superguide Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>A. North Carolina.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>John A. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Gregory A. California.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Elizabeth J. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter J. Et al.</p> <p class=MsoNormal>With him on the brief were <u>Nagendra Setty</u>. Argued for third party defendant appellant Gemstar Development Corporation.<spa
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1532.html">CARDIAC PACEMAKERS, INC., ET AL. V. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey B. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard R. Font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief were <u>J. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>H. Mark Lyon</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief was <u>Mark A. Font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jeffrey M. Font family:Arial'>This patent infringement action was brought by Cardiac Pacemakers. Or quivering fashion (fibrillation).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Arrhythmias may occur in varying degrees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In treating such heart abnormalities it is important to determine the form and degree of arrhythmia present. Font family:Arial'>The inventions subject of this lawsuit are implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) that are permanently installed under the skin.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1497.html">DAYCO PRODUCTS, INC., V. TOTAL CONTAINMENT<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Edward V. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>John J. The district court concluded that there was no liability for infringement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that summary judgment for the defendant was improper and genuine issues of material fact remain to be determined. Cir. 2001) ( <span class=SpellE><u>Dayco</u></span><u> I</u> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><span class=SpellE>Dayco</span> is the owner of the 752. Inc. ( TCI ) is accused of infringing certain claims of those patents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In the earlier appeal. The remaining asserted claims were:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>claims 1. This time on the ground that the patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. That the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1400.html">ABBOTT LABORATORIES V. BAXTER PHARMACEUTICALS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Edward L. <u>Peggy Balesteri</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Blake T. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David T. Cass</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Thomas S. Its presence in an anesthetic is harmful.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>HF also etches glass. Line height:200%'>Baxter filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposing to market generic sevoflurane.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Baxter s proposed product is a compositi
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1366.html">WILLIAM H. VELANDER, V. IAN GARDNER<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stephen A. Argued for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Karen Mangasarian</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin right:.5in'><o:p> . Johnson (deceased) (collectively Velander ) are the inventors named on the 184 application.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Ian Garner. Foster (collectively Garner ) are the inventors named on the 940 patent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Velander appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. That granted Garner s preliminary motion to have all of the allowed claims of the 184 application held unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Garner v. 2001) ( <u>Velander</u> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence and is not contrary to law. Line height:200%'>I.</p> <p class=Normal AS>This case relates to the production of non human mammals that have been genetically altered ( transgenic animals ) so that they produce the enzyme fibrinogen in its biologically active state.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>After the enzyme is produced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1164.html">PRIMA TEK II, L.L.C V. POLYPAP<BR></A><BR>
Inc. is the patent owner and Prima Tek II. L.L.C. is a licensee of the '856 patent. Entitled Method of Making a Decorative Assembly for a Floral Grouping. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>These patents describe a decorative assembly for flowers comprising a floral holding material and a decorative sheet of material.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The floral holding material is constructed of a material capable of receiving a portion of the flowers and supporting them.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1077.html">BAYER AG V. CARLSBAD<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1392.html">EARL E. THOMPSON, SR., V. HENRY HAYNES<BR></A><BR>
2001) ( <u>Judgment</u> ).<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1357.html">KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH V. DANA CORPORATION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Michael I. Cantor</u> and <u>Karen Canaan</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>John C. Defendant appellant Dana Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief for Haldex were <u>Wesley W. Of counsel were <u>James P. Copyright Section.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lynn E. For amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>F. Christopher Mizzo</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Melvin C. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Emily A. Evans</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Michael A. For amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey I.D. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief was <u>David G.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1238.html">ALLEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. BARTELL<BR></A><BR>
On the brief was <u>Stephen D. With him on the brief was <u>Mark J. We vacate the district court s determination that the patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1201.html">SPECIAL DEVICES, INC., V. OEA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1191.html">AMGEN V. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1161.html">JOHN D. SCOTT V. SATOSHI KOYAMA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1157.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1098.html">GENENTECH, INC V. AMGEN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1094.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1001.html">RHEOX, INC V. ENTACT<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1578.html">FINA TECHNOLOGY, INC. V. JOHN EWEN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1451.html">DAVID M. RAPOPORT V. WILLIAM C. DEMENT<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1434.html">STATE CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. STATE OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1402.html">ECOLAB V. ENVIROCHEM, INC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1272.html">APOTEX USA V. MERCK<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1088r.html">GART V. LOGITECH<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1033.html">SOLOMON, SANDRA V. KIMBERLY-CLARK<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel was <U>Harry M. With him on the brief were <U>V. Of counsel were <U>Carter G. 381 are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § . Sandra Southwell (now Sandra Solomon) is the named inventor on the 381 patent. Which is directed to disposable panties and panty liners for use during a woman s menstrual cycle. Which is representative of the claims at issue. Which have been modified for clarity. Panty 21 is divided into body portion 22. Body portion 22 is itself divided at division line 28 into top portion 26 and bottom portion 27. <U>See id.</U> at col. 5. Top portion 26 is preferably made of lightweight open mesh type material or fabric. Is composed of a highly absorbent. Oval shaped depression 43 that is bounded on both sides by thick layer 51 (specifically labeled 44 in the crotch region) and contains a relatively thin layer of absorbent material at its base. <U>See id.</U> at col. 7. As well as its conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the accused panties did not literally infringe. <U>See</U> <U>Solomon v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7104a.html">SCANDINAVIAN SATELLITE SYSTEM V. PRIME TV LIMITED,<BR></A><BR>
Tepper argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/94-4368.man.html">STUART I. LEVIN & ASSOCIATES V. ROGERS (9/29/1998, NO. 94-4368)<BR></A><BR>
Because he was not the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/95-2848.man.html">EPIC METALS CORP. V. SOULIERE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Epic Metals Corp. v. Asserting that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Was commonly used by the construction industry.<p> In 1968 Epic developed EPICORE as an alternative to Type B deck. EPICORE is not patented. Is twenty four and one half inches wide. EPICORE's roll formed sheets are characterized by these dovetail ribs. TYPE PDI<p> <p> The tooling required to form the steel into this profile is more complex than that required to form Type B decking. EPICORE is more expensive to produce.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/95-6271.opa.html">GREGORY V. ELECTRO-MECHANICAL CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gregory v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this case is the meaning of the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/01-16305.opn.html">JENKINS BRICK CO. V. BREMER (3/31/1997, NO. 01-16305)<BR></A><BR>
A non compete agreement was presented to Bremer in Savannah by Leon Hawk. Hawk told Bremer that his signature was a necessary condition of his continued employment with the company. The agreement contained clauses stating that it was to be governed by Alabama law and that it was executed in Alabama.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/95-8751.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-9249.man.html">ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)<BR></A><BR>
Plc (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-2157.opa.html">UNIVERSITY OF FLA. V. KPB, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>University of Fla. v. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/93-2314.man.html">PULTE HOME CORP. V. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pulte Home Corp. v. A manufacturer of chemicals that were applied to plywood Pulte used in constructing the roofs of 1876 townhouses. After the townhouses were sold. A jury found that Pulte's loss from replacing the plywood was caused by Osmose's (1) misrepresentation that the plywood would not deteriorate and (2) negligence in failing to warn Pulte that the plywood would deteriorate. Finding that Osmose's misrepresentation was made with fraudulent intent to induce Pulte to purchase Osmose treated plywood. The court acted on the theory that Pulte's tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Which are sold at various prices. The multi family townhouses consist of a row of single family housing units that are joined by a common wall and. Osmose was only one of several manufacturers of chemicals used to create fire retardant treated (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-8700.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-16588.opn.html">FOUR SEASONS HOTELS V. CONSORCIO BARR (2/5/2003, NO. 01-16588)<BR></A><BR>
Four Seasons filed a complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that Consorcio was gaining unauthorized access to the Four Seasons computer network. Appellants were served with the complaint. Appellants' lawyer cross examined Four Seasons' witness but did not present any witnesses or affidavits. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/96-3119.man.html">CNA FIN. CORP. V. BROWN (12/22/1998, NO. 96-3119)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Appellant CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) is the parent holding corporation of Continental Casualty Company (Continental). The Valley Forge Life Insurance Company are collectively known in advertising as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-9157.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/94-4368.man.html">STUART I. LEVIN & ASSOCIATES V. ROGERS (9/29/1998, NO. 94-4368)<BR></A><BR>
Because he was not the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/95-2848.man.html">EPIC METALS CORP. V. SOULIERE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Epic Metals Corp. v. Asserting that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Was commonly used by the construction industry.<p> In 1968 Epic developed EPICORE as an alternative to Type B deck. EPICORE is not patented. Is twenty four and one half inches wide. EPICORE's roll formed sheets are characterized by these dovetail ribs. TYPE PDI<p> <p> The tooling required to form the steel into this profile is more complex than that required to form Type B decking. EPICORE is more expensive to produce.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/95-6271.opa.html">GREGORY V. ELECTRO-MECHANICAL CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gregory v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this case is the meaning of the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/95-8751.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-9249.man.html">ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)<BR></A><BR>
Plc (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-2157.opa.html">UNIVERSITY OF FLA. V. KPB, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>University of Fla. v. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/93-2314.man.html">PULTE HOME CORP. V. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pulte Home Corp. v. A manufacturer of chemicals that were applied to plywood Pulte used in constructing the roofs of 1876 townhouses. After the townhouses were sold. A jury found that Pulte's loss from replacing the plywood was caused by Osmose's (1) misrepresentation that the plywood would not deteriorate and (2) negligence in failing to warn Pulte that the plywood would deteriorate. Finding that Osmose's misrepresentation was made with fraudulent intent to induce Pulte to purchase Osmose treated plywood. The court acted on the theory that Pulte's tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Which are sold at various prices. The multi family townhouses consist of a row of single family housing units that are joined by a common wall and. Osmose was only one of several manufacturers of chemicals used to create fire retardant treated (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-8700.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-16588.opn.html">FOUR SEASONS HOTELS V. CONSORCIO BARR (2/5/2003, NO. 01-16588)<BR></A><BR>
Four Seasons filed a complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that Consorcio was gaining unauthorized access to the Four Seasons computer network. Appellants were served with the complaint. Appellants' lawyer cross examined Four Seasons' witness but did not present any witnesses or affidavits. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-3119.man.html">CNA FIN. CORP. V. BROWN (12/22/1998, NO. 96-3119)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Appellant CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) is the parent holding corporation of Continental Casualty Company (Continental). The Valley Forge Life Insurance Company are collectively known in advertising as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-9157.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-6133.wpd.html">HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1148.html">MULTISTATE LEGAL STUDIES V. HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH LEGAL AND PROF. PUBS.<BR></A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff in this antitrust action is Multistate Legal Studies. Were the reason PMBR's Colorado market share dropped from 84 percent in 1991 to 23 percent in 1993. Because we are remanding the case for trial of other issues. Two types of bar review courses are relevant to this litigation:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-5093.htm">03-5093 -- WEBB V. BLEVINS -- 01/28/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal stems from a continuing dispute regarding a trademark on toothpicks. <em>Pro se</em> Appellant Webb filed a complaint against Appellee Blevins alleging trademark infringement. The remainder of the claims were tried before a jury. This appeal followed. <p> We initially note that Appellant's brief is nothing more than his Trial Brief with a new cover page. The brief does not have a statement of issues or an argument section to support any issues. The exhibits and new
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-4163.htm">00-4163 -- DELTA WESTERN GROUP V. MCCAULEY -- 12/18/2001<BR></A><BR>
RUFI is the owner of the Ruth's Chris Steak House chain. RUFI is also the owner of a registered service mark which features the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-5061.htm">98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION -- 06/29/1999<BR></A><BR>
Is the assignee of the publicity rights of current players and handles licensing agreements authorizing the use of their identities. <p> In a letter to Cardtoons dated June 18. Cardtoons was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3299.htm">96-3299 -- RILEY MANUFACTURING CO. INC. V. ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORP. -- 09/11/1998<BR></A><BR>
We disagree with the district court's conclusion that there was no valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. To supply the plastic spigots and plastic lids that were made from injection molds that Riley designed and over which Riley asserted trade secret protection. The three provisions that are most relevant in this dispute are the copyright assignment. Arbitration clauses. <p> The copyright provisions in the Manufacturing Agreement indicated that Riley already had assigned to Anchor Glass the copyrights for all of the ornamental designs that were then being used on the sun tea containers that Anchor Glass would be selling for Riley. Although Anchor Glass would have the right to sell off its remaining inventory of Riley manufactured sun tea jars when the contract expired. It would have no right to use or sell the Riley designs after the copyrights were reassigned to Riley. <p> Under the termination clause. The parties specified what continuing rights each would have when the three year contract expired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/95-1411.htm">95-1411 -- SPORTS RACING SERVICES, INC. V. SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC. -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
SCCA is a nonprofit organization that organizes and sanctions amateur sports car racing events for twenty three classes of sports cars. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1542.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert G. Of counsel was Mark E. I. BACKGROUND Henkel and Procter & Gamble are competing manufacturers of dishwashing detergent tablets. This appeal concerns detergent tablets that are divided into two regions: a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1517.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Mark K. Of counsel on the brief was Marcus T. With him on the brief were Eric M. This was not a case of mistake or negligence the prosecuting attorney testified that he would make all the same nondisclosure decisions again if prosecuting the same applications today. The issues of materiality and intent are fact driven. The law recognizes that deceptive intent is virtually never shown or disproved by direct evidence. McKesson must demonstrate that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. This is accomplished first by providing a set of bar codes associated with a given patient such that one bar code from the set is physically attached to the 2006 1517 2 patient and the other bar codes from the set are physically attached to. Because the handheld patient terminals are portable. It is desirable to prevent one such terminal from wirelessly communicating with a base station in. The portable handheld patient terminal means including electromagnetic wave transceiver means including means for transmission of patient and item data as an electromagnetic wave whic |
