Federal Circuit· 3/24/2005
In Re Dr. Matthias Rath
Citations
- 402 F.3d 1207
- 74 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1174
- 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4833
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that, under 19 U.S.C. §3512(c), Congress has specifically precluded any person other than the United States from using TRIPs as a cause of action or defense.
- Federal Circuit affirmed board decision holding that DR. RATH was primarily merely a surname
- “the Paris Convention is not a self-executing treaty and requires congressional implementation”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bryson, Dyk, Linn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.Second Circuit· 2007-03-28· cited 151×
- Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.District of Columbia· 2007-06-07· cited 9×
- Habeeba's Dance of the Arts, Ltd. v. KnoblauchS.D. Ohio· 2006-05-02· cited 5×
- Itc Limited v. Punchgini, Inc.Second Circuit· 2007-03-28· cited 4×
- Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AGE.D. Virginia· 2015-02-06· cited 4×
- SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc.District of Columbia· 2006-03-31· cited 2×
- Bruyea v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2024-12-05
- Adrian Giger and Thomas GigerTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2006-02-28
- Tea Board of India v. The Republic of Tea, Inc.Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2006-08-23
- Piano Factory Group Inc.Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2007-10-29
- Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belmora LLCTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2009-04-06
- Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A. v. ISM, Inc.Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2010-03-15
- The Government of the District of ColumbiaTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2012-01-18
- Kent PedersenTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2013-12-30
- Aloe Bioscience, LLCTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2015-05-13
- Shabby Chic Brands, LLCTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2017-03-31
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Perini Corporation v. Perini Construction, Inc.Fourth Circuit· 1990-10-16· cited 624×
- South Corporation and Seal Fleet, Inc. v. The United StatesFederal Circuit· 1982-10-28· cited 481×
- Murray v. Schooner Charming BetsySupreme Court· 1804-02-22· cited 400×
- Whitney v. RobertsonSupreme Court· 1888-01-09· cited 353×
- Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. The T. Eaton Co. Limited and John David EatonSecond Circuit· 1956-06-01· cited 343×
- Lane Capital Management, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Lane Capital Management, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppellantSecond Circuit· 1999-09-22· cited 247×
- Cook v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1933-01-23· cited 181×
- Conan Properties, Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1985-02-04· cited 152×
- Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum CorporationThird Circuit· 1979-04-03· cited 133×
- In Re International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.Federal Circuit· 1999-07-20· cited 78×
- Peaceable Planet, Inc. v. Ty, Inc. And H. Ty WarnerSeventh Circuit· 2004-04-02· cited 62×
- Tommy Larsen Tommy Larsen Aps v. Terk Technologies CorporationFourth Circuit· 1998-07-14· cited 46×
- International Café, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.), Inc.Eleventh Circuit· 2001-05-31· cited 39×
- In Re Etablissements Darty Et FileFederal Circuit· 1985-04-11· cited 38×
- Kawai v. MetlesicsCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1973-06-21· cited 33×
- Charles E. Ortman, Jr. v. Stanray CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1967-01-03· cited 30×
- Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United StatesFederal Circuit· 2004-05-13· cited 23×
- Scm Corporation v. Langis Foods Ltd.D.C. Circuit· 1976-06-23· cited 20×
- In Re Compagnie Generale MaritimeFederal Circuit· 1993-06-07· cited 18×
- In Re Mastic Inc.Federal Circuit· 1987-09-30· cited 16×
Other cases named In Re Dr. Matthias Rath
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.