15 U.S.C. § 1123
Rules and regulations for conduct of proceedings in Patent and Trademark Office
The Director shall make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the conduct of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Piano Factory Grp., Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta Gmbh, 11 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Piano Factory Grp., Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta Gmbh, 11 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “The broad statutory authority given to the Director by section 41 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1123 , to “make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the conduct of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Of- fice” is not subject to the requirements that the…”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001). “§ 1125 (a) and Virginia common law, and service mark dilution and cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (c). Doughney appeals the district court’s decision granting PETA’s motion for summary judgment and PETA cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s…”
Am. Employers' Ins. v. Delorme Publ'g Co., 39 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D. Me. 1999). “§ 1114 and 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (a). There has never been an allegation that a duty to defend falls under any provision other than that in the policy providing coverage for suits arising out of “advertising injuries.”
Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Buildxact Software Ltd., 95 F.4th 810 (4th Cir. 2024). “15 U.S.C. §§ 1123 , 35 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added).”
Mahaska Bottling Co. v. PepsiCo Inc., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (S.D. Iowa 2017). “Count X alleges a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (a), based on PBC’s use of Pepsi trademarks.”
Saf.-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1975). “] *1403 Pursuant to the rule-making authority conferred by section 41 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1123 , the Commissioner promulgated the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 CFR 2.”
Thuron Indus., Inc. v. Conard-Pyle Co., 579 F.2d 633 (C.C.P.A. 1978). “Rule 13(a) FRCP provides in this regard that a pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time *637 of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing…”
Roxana Towry Russell v. Walmart Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2023). “On Plaintiff Roxana Russell’s claim for relief for violations of the Lanham Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (a)), premised on Defendant Walmart’s alleged false advertising (Count V in Complaint): Judgment is 3 entered in favor of Defendant Walmart.”
AJ Holdings of Metairie, LLC v. BJ'S Jewelry & Loan, LLC (E.D. La. 2022). “On February 22, 2021, plaintiff filed the instant complaint in the Court, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (a) on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.”
AJ Holdings of Metairie, LLC v. BJ'S Jewelry & Loan, LLC (E.D. La. 2022). “On February 22, 2021, plaintiff filed the instant complaint in the Court, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (a) based on federal question jurisdiction.”
Noco Co. v. Doe (N.D. Ohio 2020). “§ 1114 (Count Four), Trademark Dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (Count Five), and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices pursuant to O.”
Carabin (W.D. Tex. 2025). “” See 15 U.S.C. § 1123 (a)(1)(A). B. Defendants Failed to Plead Facts Alleging Confusion As discussed, Carabin assigned CS the right to use “Carabin Shaw” in the 2003 Stock Purchase Agreement.”
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.