Search for: "Bissell Homecare Inc."
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2024, 2:30 am
Six of the reports included the battery pack catching fire, three of which resulted in minor property damage and two resulting in minor burn injuries.Sold At:Lowe’s, Macy’s, Kohl’s, Target, Walmart, Best Buy and other stores nationwide and online at www.bissell.com, www.amazon.com, www.hsn.com and other online sellers from August 2016 through December 2022 for between $110 and $270.Importer(s):BISSELL Homecare Inc., of Grand Rapids, MichiganManufactured… [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 12:25 pm
Bissell Homecare v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 12:25 pm
Bissell Homecare v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:43 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc., Opposition No. 91173831 (February 16, 2010) [not precedential].The Board first resolved a few evidentiary skirmishes, the most interesting involving several third-party registrations attached to Bissell's main brief. [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 7:21 am
Responding to a challenge brought by BISSELL Homecare, Inc., NAD noted that Reckitt Benckiser’s “#1 Brand” claim is properly understood to mean that the brand itself, rather than any specific product, holds the highest market share in its relevant category. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 1:27 pm
Bissell Homecare, Inc., 2013 WL 2936453 (N.D. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 9:50 pm
Bissell Homecare Inc., Opposition No. 91173831 [Opposition to registration of HEALTHY HOME VACUUM for vacuum cleaners on the alternative grounds of Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness and genericness].October 14, 2009 - 2 PM: Citigroup Inc. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains 2(d) opposition, finding SWEDISH LUXERY and SWEDISH SLEEP SYSTEM confusingly similar for mattresses: Tempur-Pedic International Inc., et al. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains 2(d) opposition, finding SWEDISH LUXERY and SWEDISH SLEEP SYSTEM confusingly similar for mattresses: Tempur-Pedic International Inc., et al. v. [read post]
