Search for: "E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co." Results 41 - 60 of 168
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2018, 10:28 am by James Hastings
  To establish a Section 2(d) case for likelihood of confusion, the Board undertakes the 13-part test found in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 1:27 pm by James Hastings
  The analysis of whether a likelihood of confusion exists has been enunciated in the 13 part test found in the case seminal case  In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 2:26 pm by James Hastings
  To do so, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board looks to a 13-part test set forth in the seminal case  In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 3:09 pm by James Hastings
   In Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases,  the plaintiff must establish the presence of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ trademarks pursuant to the thirteen factors set forth in the case of In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 5:20 am by Jon Gelman
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 101 N.J. 161, 501 A.2d 505 (1985), appeal after remand 226 N.J.Super. 572, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), judgment aff'd 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989). [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 5:57 pm by Jon Gelman
Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 N.J.L. 404, 193 A. 194 (1937), aff'd 119 N.J.L. 427, 197 A. 276 (Err. [read post]
Du Pont de Nemours, Louisville Works, 346 NLRB No. 113 (2016) and clarified that an employer does not have an affirmative duty to bargain over employment actions that are consistent with its past practice. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am by Wolfgang Demino
Texas Supreme Court to hear oral argument on Tuesday, October 10, 2017 in client's fee fight with his former attorney following conclusion of drawn-out fight over inheritance money. [read post]
23 Sep 2017, 12:39 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 2004), the specification may be used to interpret what the patent holder meant by a word or phrase in the claim,E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 8:27 am by Greg Mersol
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011), while the Ninth and Second Circuits had allowed such tactics. [read post]
1 May 2017, 5:46 am by James Hastings
   In cases where it is alleged that the Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will look to the factors for likelihood of confusion set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
1 May 2017, 5:46 am by James Hastings
   In cases where it is alleged that the Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will look to the factors for likelihood of confusion set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 8:57 am by Tiffany Blofield
In determining whether there was a likelihood of confusion, the Board, as usual, applied the factors identified in the In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am by Dennis Crouch
”) Anticipation/Obviousness: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 2:40 am by Thomas Long
In addition, MacDermid’s Digital CST printing plates did not infringe another DuPont patent (E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 5:01 am by Moll Law Group, Ltd
The plaintiff alleged that DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.), which sells products including Teflon, Stainmaster carpet, and Gore-tex, continuously dumped carcinogenic waste into the Ohio River, and the company tried to conceal the dangers of C-8. [read post]