TEST MASTERS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. SINGH

Nos. 03-20787, 04-20861 and 05-20049.

428 F.3d 559 (2005)

TEST MASTERS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.; Vivek Israni, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robin SINGH, doing business as Testmasters, Defendant-Appellant. Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., a California Corporation, doing business as Testmasters, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Vivek Israni, Defendant-Appellee. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Vivek Israni, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robin Singh, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robin Singh, doing business as Testmasters, Defendant-Appellee. Robin Singh, doing business as Testmasters, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc.; et al., Defendants, Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., a California Corporation, doing business as Testmasters, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 18, 2005.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David John Schenck (argued), Christopher Donald Kratovil, Jones Day, John Walter Patton, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Hassan A. Zavareei (argued), Jonathan K. Tycko, Tycko, Zavareei & Spiva, Washington, DC, Paul Douglas Heard, Brown McCarroll, Houston, TX, Brian M. Berliner, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas M. Norminton, Beverly Hills, CA, for Singh.

Mario A. Aieta, Garvey Schubert Barer, New York City, Richard Charles Henn, Theodore Harris Davis, Kilpatrick Stockton, Atlanta, GA, for Intern. Trademark Ass'n, Amicus Curiae.

Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.


CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:

The principal issue in this case is whether Robin Singh is estopped by res judicata from asserting his claims of unfair competition, false designation of origin, and deceptive advertising pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); false advertising pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); and infringement of a registered trademark under California law. The district court held that a prior action and final judgment on the merits...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases