The Trademark Office in this case stated that in order to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to its intent to
use on a motion for summary judgment, an applicant must rely on specific facts that establish the «existence of an ability and willingness to use the mark in the United States to identify [the goods in the application] at the time of the filing of the application.»
Not exact matches
[5] In the months following the amendments to Rule 20, it has become a matter of some controversy and uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate
for a
motion judge to
use the new powers conferred by the amended Rule 20 to decide an action
on the basis of the evidence presented
on a
motion for summary judgment.
In Fernandes v. Araujo et al., the owner's insurer brought a
motion for summary judgment stating that the owner was not vicariously liable
for the driver's negligence as the owner had not given permission to the driver to operate the vehicle, an ATV located
on the owner's farm,
on the highway, as the driver only had a G1 license and was not licensed to
use the ATV
on a highway.