Search for: "Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2024, 9:00 am
Background Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (‘Hewlett Packard’) owns EU trade marks for the sign ‘HP’, which are registered for various types of computer hardware. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 10:34 pm
Ltd. fourth with 2,273, and Hewlett-Packard Development Co. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 5:58 am
.: 3-15860 Case filed: May 1, 2014 Qualifying Judgment/Order: May 1, 2014 05/22/2014 08/20/2014 2014-55 In the Matter of Hewlett-Packard Company Administrative Proceeding File No.: 3-15832 Case filed: April 9, 2014 Qualifying Judgment/Order: April 9, 2014 05/22/2014 08/20/2014 2014-54 SEC v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 3:20 am
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, Cancellation No. 92050789 [Section 2(d) opposition to TOUCH SMART for "personal computers, computer hardware, computer monitors, computer display screens" on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark SMART TOUCH for “electronic proximity sensors and switching devices"].April 19, 2012 - 11 AM: In re Primerica, Inc., Serial No. 77931208 [Section 2(d) refusal to register… [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 8:50 am
This Katfriend notes that a somewhat more nuanced view of the issue of burden of proof for consumption of trade mark rights was recently set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-367/21, Hewlett Packard Development Company LP v Senetic S.A., EU:C:2024:61 (see IPKat post here) but the facts of that case was different from this case in many aspects.The court also obiter confirmed that Tissot had the right under Article 15(2) of the EU Trade… [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 1:41 am
Group, Inc v Jungle Networks, Inc (Gray on Claims) BPAI holds term indefinite and summarizes reasoning behind broadest reasonable interpretation rule: Ex parte Senju Metal Industry Co (Gray on Claims) US Patents - Lawsuits and strategic steps Amkor Technology - ITC issues supplemental initial determination finding non-invalidity under 35 USC §§ 102(g) and 103(a) of certain asserted patent claims in investigation concerning Carsem's importation and sale of encapsulated integrated… [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 1:41 am
IP Think Tank Podcast 22 October 2009 (IP Think Tank) Systemic risks to IP and intangible assets (Business IP and Intangible Assets Report and Blog) Systemic risks to IP and intangible assets held by SME’s and SMM’s (Business IP and Intangible Assets Report and Blog) Converging and bundling intangible assets to meet company’s core mission (Business IP and Intangible Assets Report and Blog) Intangible asset risk management – the 4G of information asset… [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 1:41 am
Group, Inc v Jungle Networks, Inc (Gray on Claims) BPAI holds term indefinite and summarizes reasoning behind broadest reasonable interpretation rule: Ex parte Senju Metal Industry Co (Gray on Claims) US Patents - Lawsuits and strategic steps Amkor Technology - ITC issues supplemental initial determination finding non-invalidity under 35 USC §§ 102(g) and 103(a) of certain asserted patent claims in investigation concerning Carsem's importation and sale of encapsulated integrated… [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 6:00 pm
), (Washington State Patent Law Blog), (The IP Factor), (IPBiz), (IP Spotlight), (IP Law360), (Innovationpartners), (IPBiz),US FTC files complaint against Cephalon alleging the company paid four generic drug manufacturers (Ranbaxy, Teva, Mylan and Barr) to delay entry as part of litigation settlements: (IP Law360), (IP Law360), (Spicy IP),GlobalGlobal - GeneralWhat is IP value all about? [read post]
