Search for: "JOHN DOES 1 AND 2"
Results 61 - 80
of 10,066
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2009, 12:17 pm
In a Pittsburgh case targeting Carnegie Mellon Students which has previously been known as Fonovisa Records 1-9, in which the Court dismissed as to John Does 1-2 and 4-9 due to improper joinder, the RIAA has many months later amended its complaint to pursue "John Doe #3", a Carnegie Mellon student, in her own name. [read post]
25 May 2022, 2:54 am
Any heightened standard would be inconsistent with both (1) the standard for third parties to challenge the registration of marks as generic and (2) the “reasonable predicate” meaning of “prima facie case” in the context of other refusals in examination. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 8:15 am
"How does this all fit together? [read post]
4 Dec 2016, 3:13 pm
John Doe, 2016 WL 6958647 (9thCir. [read post]
2 May 2019, 7:44 am
John Patrick Wright was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wisconsin State Statute § 941.23(2). [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 2:02 am
However, if it is determined that the mark does fall with the Section 2(b) prohibition, then the goods or services identified in the application to register are irrelevant. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 9:47 am
In this scheme, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers sue a single John Doe defendant (who is believed to reside in the forum), and then seek expedited discovery not only as to that defendant but also as to hundreds of other John Does on the theory that they could be “co-conspirators” with the named John Doe. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 5:47 pm
"I'm guessing the Walker side of the deliberation had 2 aspects:1. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
In a rare unillustrated opinion authored by Judge Bucher, the Board reversed a Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register the mark BANANA CHAIR, finding it not merely descriptive of "furniture, chair. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 4:44 am
"Weighing these factors, the Board found confusion likely and it sustained the 2(d) refusal.Deceptive Misdescriptiveness: Section 2(e)(1) misdescriptiveness requires (1) that the mark misdescribe the goods, and (2) that purchasers are likely to believe the misrepresentation. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 8:42 am
CSPAN covering it live here.I'm out of town and don't have time just now to blog in detail about this statement, except for a handful of very quick reactions:1. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 11:21 am
John Doe #2, perhaps, gets the benefit of Supreme Court rule-making, according to this opinion; but first John Doe #1 has to have his cover blown. [read post]
1 May 2013, 1:36 pm
John Doe #2, perhaps, gets the benefit of Supreme Court rule-making, according to this opinion; but first John Doe #1 has to have his cover blown. [read post]
19 Oct 2006, 6:24 am
For what it's worth, although John gets the big picture of the MCA right, there are several inaccurate statements in John's Op/Ed, including these: 1. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 2:06 pm
An essay by John McGinnis, “The Rise and Fall of Chevron,” recently caught my eye. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 12:40 am
§ 701(b)(1)(G). [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 3:24 am
So why should a disclaimer of BREWERY avoid the Section 2(e)(1) bar? [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 5:00 am
The accident took place at 2:15 a.m. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 11:00 am
Klein (Ernst & Young, Boca Raton, FL), pp. 1, 16-17 Section Meeting Calendar, p. 2 From the Chair,... [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 6:15 pm
Moniker Online Services, LLC and John Does 1-10, 0 Civ 9729 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
