Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a § 1071(b) action is an alternative to a § 1071(a) appeal of the TTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• explaining that a § 1071(b) action is an alternative to a § 1071(a) appeal of the TTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• explaining that a § 1071(b) action is an alternative to a § 1071(a) appeal of the TTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• applying Supreme Court precedent interpreting the patent parallels to a Section 1071 trademark appeal
• rejecting the argument that “SWA” in “Swatch” and “Swap” is the “dominant portion of both marks” because “[w]e compare whole words, not parts, and generally use the phrase ‘dominant portion’ to refer to the non-generic words in multiword marks” (citation omitted)
• in a case involving § 1071(b), relying on Supreme Court precedent interpreting the patent statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).