Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 2001 V. FAME JEANS, INC., 2006 WL 337552, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861, 1862 (T.T.A.B.2006). 2 . Opposition No. 91163436. 3 . See, e.g., WamerVision Entertainment, Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc., 101 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir.1996) (intent-to-use applicant could assert its constructive use date to defend an infringement action); Mitchell Cosmetics SARL v. Pramil S.R.L. (Esphanna), No. 04-1557, 2005 WL 3273371, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18915 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2005) (Lamberth, J.) (affirming priority determination by TTAB that relied on constructive use); Lucent Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 986 F.Supp. 253, 258 (D.Del.1997) (defendant could rely on its intent-to-use application date for priority in defending an action). Cf. SCM Corp. v. Langis Foods, Ltd., 539 F.2d 196, (D.C.Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>); Talk To Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where law not facts changed between filing and conversion law in effect on date of filing controls (B) holding the correct date to use when determining the controlling statute is date upon which the claim arose (C) recognizing section 44d applicants constructive use date based on foreign filing (D) holding correct date to use when determining controlling statute is date upon which claim arose (E) recognizing theory of constructive possession
Output (English): holding that where law not facts changed between filing and conversion law in effect on date of filing controls