# Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · February 18, 1982 · 670 F.2d 1024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8914688

## Case

- **Full name:** LIPTON INDUSTRIES, INC., assignee, by assignment and change of name from Usen Products Company v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** February 18, 1982
- **Citations:** 670 F.2d 1024; 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 185; 1982 CCPA LEXIS 185
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Markey
- **Judges:** Markey, Nies
- **Cited by:** 273 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8914688

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that while “the legitimacy of the petitioner’s activity from which its interest arises will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the con- trary,” a party may “of course, seek to attack the legitimacy of [an] application or in some other way negate appellee’s in…
- holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made “on information and belief’

## Opinion text

MARKEY, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I agree that standing is a threshold consideration. If the facts pleaded show standing, the pleader is in court. Those facts must thereafter be proved, but at the pleading stage they need only be “capable of proof at trial.” United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 689 , 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416 , 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). The facts establishing standing were proved here. That to me ends our consideration of the standing issue. Because I am not aware of an instance in which the board has sustained standing on the basis of unproven *1032 allegations, or in which it has canceled a registration on the basis of mere allegations, I see no reason to discuss its past decisions. Nor, for the same reason, do I view the board’s approach as shifting the burden.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8914688. Public record. Not legal advice.