Opinion ID: 765770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 11 On appeal, we consider: (1) whether the district court erred in concluding that the NFL defendants had acquired protectable rights in the mark St. Louis Rams prior to Blastoff; (2) whether the district court erred in finding a likelihood of confusion exists between the plaintiff's and the defendants' use of the St. Louis Rams mark; (3) whether the district court's ruling that Blastoff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning the shipment of merchandise bearing the St. Louis Rams mark on April 12, 1995, was proper; (4) whether the district court's ruling that Blastoff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact in support of its claim that the Rams mark was generic was proper; (5) whether the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's unfair competition and deceptive advertising claims due to the plaintiff's lack of standing; and (6) whether the trial judge's determination that she lacked statutory authority to order the PTO to reject applications for the St. Louis Rams mark was proper.