In re Bose Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.3d 1240 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1058 (§ 8 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (§ 14 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1071 (§ 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on Davis, As Next Friend of Lashonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education et al. · Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District · Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. · South Corporation v. United States · Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Fraud in procuring a trademark registration or renewal occurs when an applicant knowingly makes false, material representations of fact in connection with his application.” Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46, 48 (Fed. Cir.1986). A party seeking cancellation of a trademark registration for fraudulent procurement bears a heavy burden of proof. W.D. Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co., 54 C.C.P.A. 1442 , 377 F.2d 1001, 1004 (1967). Indeed, “the very nature of the charge of fraud requires that it be proven ‘to the hilt’ with clear and convincing evidence. There is no room for speculation, inference or surmise and, obviously, any doubt must be resolved against the charging party.” Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 209 U.S.P.Q. 1033 , 1044 (T.T.A.B.1981).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[A]bsent the requisite intent to mislead the USPTO, even a material misrepresentation would not qualify as fraud under the Lanham Act warranting cancellation.' " Spin Master, Ltd. , 778 F.Supp.2d at 1061 (quoting In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d at 1244 ). "[B]ecause direct evidence of deceptive intent is rarely available, such intent can be inferred from indirect and circumstantial evidence. But such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.