Search for: "Medline Industries Inc" Results 1 - 20 of 29
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jan 2021, 7:03 am
Only one of the reversals was precedential, namely, In re Medline Industries, Inc., involving green medical gloves. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 3:31 am
In re Medline Industries, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 10237 (TTAB 2020) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 3:34 am
" In re Medline Industries, Inc., Serial No. 87680078 (March 25, 2020) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin).The Board observed that this case is "unusual" because the TTAB has issued only one predecential decision involving the issue of likelihood of confusion between two single-color marks in the nearly 25 years following the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Qualitex: namely, In re Cook Med. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 1:32 pm by Noble McIntyre
Surgical Procedure Packs have been recalled by DeRoyal Industries due to mislabeled lidocaine. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 3:05 am
November 21, 2019 - 1 PM: In re Medline Industries, Inc., Serial No. 87680078 [Section 2(d) refusal to register the color green (below left) as applied to gloves for  “Medical examination gloves” in view of the registered mark shown below right, for the color green as applied to the exterior of gloves for use with “Gloves for medical use; Protective gloves for medical use"].Read comments and post your comment here.TTABlog note: Any predictions? [read post]
8 Oct 2018, 1:07 pm by Aaron Lancaster
BIPA Medline and Con Tech Lighting Latest Illinois Employers Hit With Claims under BIPA • Two Illinois employers, Con Tech Lighting and Medline Industries, are the latest to face claims alleging violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
Attorney, Past Education Chair for the California State Bar Law Practice Management and Technology Section, Founder of JurisPro Inc. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 1:25 pm by Sean Wajert
Medline Industries, Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013); see Comcast Corp. v. [read post]