15 U.S.C. § 1069
Application of equitable principles in inter partes proceedings
In all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2018).
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2018). “The district court held that laches barred CWL’s infringement and cancellation claims and accordingly entered judgment for Pinkette.”
United States v. Moshe Milstein, 401 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005). “1996) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1069 (“In all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches .”
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1492 (2020). “From the record the parties have put before us, it's far from clear whether trademark law historically required a showing of willfulness before allowing a profits remedy.”
James Burrough Ltd. & Kobrand Corp. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., & Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976). “15 U.S.C. § 1069 . 9 Upon appeal, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) reversed, pointing out that Distiller had never before had an opportunity to oppose Restaurant’s application to register SIGN OF THE BEEFEATER, and remanded for consideration of the likelihood of…”
Conopco, Inc., D/B/A Van Den Bergh Foods Co., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Campbell Soup Co., Defendants-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 95 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 1996). “Although we agree with Conopco’s assertion that the public interest must be considered in any application of laches, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the laches defense to the case at hand.”
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. 212 (2020). “But even if we were to spot Fossil that first essential premise of its argument, the next has problems too.”
Bridgestone/firestone Rsch., Inc. v. Auto. Club De L'Ouest De La France, 245 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1069 (“In all inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, es-toppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied.”
Pro Ftbl Inc v. Harjo, Suzan, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “Yet another provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1069 , states that “[i]n all .”
Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Laches, Estoppel, and Acquiescence The defense of laches in a trademark proceeding recognized under 15 U.S.C. § 1069 requires a showing of undue delay in asserting rights against a claimant to a conflicting mark and prejudice resulting therefrom.”
Sugar Busters LLC v. Ellen C. Brennan Theodore M. Brennan Shamrock Publ'g Inc., 177 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999). “The court apparently relied on the omission of these terms from the statement in 15 U.S.C. § 1069 that *272 “[i]n all inter parties proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied.”
Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 908 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “15 U.S.C. § 1069 (providing in the Lanham Act context that "[i]n all *804 inter partes proceedings equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable may be considered and applied").”
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People, AKA Naacp v. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 753 F.2d 131 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “See Trademark Act of 1946 As Amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1069 (1982) (principles of laches may be applied by federal courts).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.