green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
44.4 score
“where a party blindly disregards long 4 rothschild connected devices innovations, llc v. guardian prot. servs., inc. established authority and raises arguments with no factual foundation . . . the judicial process has not been used, but abused.”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Limited
In Re: Louis Vuitton Malletier
n application with an identification of goods having no restriction on trade channels obviously is not narrowed by testimony that the applicant's use is, in fact, restricted to a particular class of purchasers.
discussed
Limited
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
See Octocom Sys., 918 F.2d at 943 (stating that a broad application “is not narrowed by testimony that the applicant’s use is, in fact, restricted”).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc.
(2×)
where a party blindly disregards long 4 rothschild connected devices innovations, llc v. guardian prot. servs., inc. established authority and raises arguments with no factual foundation . . . the judicial process has not been used, but abused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re: Cordua Restaurants, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
egistrability of an applicant's mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Combe Inc. v. Dr. Aug. Wolff GMBH & Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the issue in opposition is the right of an applicant to register the mark depicted in the application for the goods identified therein.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Peju Province Winery L.P. v. Cesari S.R.L.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In deciding whether Peju’s mark was likely to be confused with Cesari’s mark, the TTAB conducted its analysis exclusively “on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in [Peju’s] application,” without considering “the 3 particular nature of [Peju’s] goods, the particular channels of trade[,] or the class of purchasers to which the sales of goods are directed.” Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Apple Inc. v. Zerodensity Yazilim Anonim Sirketi
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilfong v. Starstruck Entertainment, LLC
Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bertini v. Apple Inc.
Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed Cir. 1990))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Booking.com B.V. v. Matal
Because “the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark must -be decided on the basis of the identification of goods [and services] set forth in the application re-' gardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant’s goods,” Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. Health International Corp.
Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 943 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Wis. v. Phoenix Intern.
The Federal Circuit case on which the district court relied, Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Wis. v. Phoenix Intern.
The Federal Circuit case on which the district court relied, Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Phoenix International Software, Inc.
The Federal Circuit case on which the district court relied, Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.1990), is not to the contrary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Wis. v. Phoenix Intern.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.1990), the Federal Circuit case that the district court relied on, is not to the contrary.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Aycock Engineering, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc.
(4×)
The panel majority cites two cases that favor narrow construction of the description of services, In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207-08 (Fed.Cir.1993), and Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Dayan
First, we note that Dayan’s identification of goods, which controls this analysis, is broad enough to include golf-style clothing, particularly “golf shirts.” Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.1990) (stating “the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant’s goods.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guardsman Elevator Co. v. United States
Defendant cites Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 940 (Fed.Cir.1990), a patent appeal, in support of the proposition that for purposes of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it is plaintiff, not defendant, who must provide facts to demonstrate how project funds were distributed and that plaintiff should have been paid fully.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 940 (Fed.Cir.1990) (defining issue as genuine if it would be reasonable to find in favor of opposing party).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
International Business Machines Corp. v. United States
See RCFC 56(f); Octocom, 918 F.2d at 940.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Constant v. The United States
We hold therefore that Constant’s present appeal, in which “no basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is even arguably shown,” Octo-com Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Seros., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 943 (Fed.Cir. 1990) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1554 (Fed.Cir.1983)), is frivolous as filed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walter G. Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Company
Co., 814 F.2d 1192, 1200 (7th Cir.1987)); Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 943 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“[A]n appeal is frivolous where ‘no basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is even arguably shown.’ ”) (quoting Connell v. Sears, 772 F.2d at 1554); Bowen, 769 F.2d at 755 (the briefs “not only ignore [controlling precedent] but fail to cite any authority whatsoever in support of the notion that the issue presented is a proper or reasonable basis for these petitions.” (Footnote omitted)); Synan v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 765 F.2d 1099, 1102 …
cited
Cited "see"
In Re ST. HELENA HOSPITAL
See Octo-com Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.1990) (citing cases).
cited
Cited "see"
Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp.
See Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 943-44 (Fed.Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
DeSena v. Beekley Corp.
See Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed.Cir.1991) (citing Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.1990)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Packard Press, Inc.(formerly Packquisition Corporation),appellant v. Hewlett-Packard Company,appellee
(2×)
See Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., 918 F.2d 937, 942 , 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed.Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Longshore v. Retail Royalty Company
“Our precedent requires the Board to look to the registration to determine the scope of the goods/services covered by the contested mark.” Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 948 (Fed.Cir. 2000); see also Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.1990) (the application controls “regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant’s goods”); TMEP § 1207.01 (Apr.2014) (requiring examiner to make determination based on “the goods or services identified in the application”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Shell Oil Company
(2×)
See also Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 , 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. The United States, and Paint Applicators Trade Action Coalition
See, e.g., Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 943 , 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1788 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“[A]n appeal is frivolous where ‘no basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is even arguably shown.’ ”) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1554 (Fed.Cir.1983)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Julio M. CRUZ, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF the NAVY, Respondent
v.
DEPARTMENT OF the NAVY, Respondent
89-3359.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nov 1, 1990.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)
ORDER
A suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed in this case.
UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is
ORDERED that the suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same hereby is, accepted. The judgment entered on June 25, 1990, 906 F.2d 689, is VACATED, and the accompanying opinion is withdrawn. The mandate issued on September 28, 1990, is RECALLED. Additional briefing and argument are not indicated at this time.