Search for: "Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2013, 5:55 am
As this patent infringement action proceed toward trial, plaintiff Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:00 am
By Jason Rantanen Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 4:26 am
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 3:53 pm
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 7:35 am
"Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 8:00 am
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 7:50 am
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 10:31 am
In Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:31 am
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 11:41 am
First Quality alleged that Kimberly-Clark deliberately and intentionally withheld material prior art in connection with the prosecution of a patent-in-suit, and, as a result, the PTO issued a patent that was invalid.The text of the May 17 decision in Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 6:58 pm
(the previous owner of the ‘909 patent) (“UMD”) and Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 5:35 am
Cir. 2011), Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 11:07 am
" Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 3:09 am
Ralph Haeusler, Opposition No. 91220565 [Opposition to registration of the mark CROSSBOX for various clothing items in class 25, bread and pastries in class 30, and conducting sports competitions in class 41, on the grounds of lack of bona fide intent and likelihood of confusion with the allegedly famous mark CROSSFIT, registered for clothing, informational services in the field of nutrition, and entertainment in the nature of sports competitions].December 13, 2017 - 2 PM:… [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:46 am
The Board observed that, although the words in a word + design mark like applicant's are usually accorded greater weight, in this case opposer K-C's mark comprises only the image of a puppy with its paw on a roll of toilet paper, "so rather than using words to call for Opposer’s goods, consumers might identify Opposer’s brand another way, perhaps by recalling and mentioning the dog, or 'the puppy with toilet paper.'" Kimberly-Clark… [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 7:06 am
" Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc., et. al. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 3:15 am
September 6, 2017 - 2 PM: Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 1:05 pm
Kimberly-Clark Seeks to Perforate Its Case From Consolidation On July 15, 2016, Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) filed a letter with Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York to notify the court that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) closed its investigation into Kimberly-Clark’s flushable wipes advertising, requesting that Kimberly-Clark’s… [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 8:30 am
Lambert Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v First Quality Baby Products Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon v. [read post]
