Firsthealth of the Carolinas, Inc. v. Carefirst of Maryland, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding no excusable ne- glect where the second and third factors weighed against such a finding
• deferring to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that the reason-for-delay factor was of paramount importance
• Court affirmed finding of no excusable neglect based on second and third factors, with third weighed heavily in the analysis
• “The Board is empowered to determine only the right to register. The Board is not authorized to determine the right to use . . . .”
• The Board held that because the survey questions “recited the SMART ONES mark among the 6 suggested responses, we find the results of [the] aided awareness question to lack significant evidentiary value on the question of fame.”
• “[T]he reasons given for delay were wholly within [the movant’s] reasonable control. . . . [The movant’s] complaint of a docketing error is belied by its reference to the January 31, 2004 deadline in a motion it filed before the deadline had expired.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).