Search for: "Does 1-95" Results 221 - 240 of 3,681
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
 1)], in opposition [proceedings], does the applicant, as the defendant to the opposition, have the right to invoke prior rights which could constitute prior rights to the earlier trademark used as a prior right in the opposition? [read post]
16 Apr 2015, 3:18 pm
Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/95 (the Trade Mark Directive) states that: “The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade: (a) his own name or address provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 1:48 am
  The patent would only be sufficiently disclosed for a drug use in the treatment of HIV-1.The only difference between the former and latter examples is that in the latter the reason for the drug not working in all patients (95% of patients versus HIV-1 but not HIV-2 infected individuals) is known. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 11:17 pm
  Over 84% of the applications filed in 2007 are still pending (+/– 2% at 95% CI) , while less than 1% of applications filed in 2000 are still pending (+/– 1% at 95% CI). [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 9:56 am
While cost is certainly one factor to consider when choosing a lawyer, it is not the only factor. 1. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:35 am by Cameron Kerry, Christopher Eiswerth
Despite these significant consequences, the CJEU decision does not specifically define “essentially equivalent,” nor does it set out the E.U. baseline or otherwise engage in the actual analysis. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 8:54 am
There are a total of 10 recommendations, amongst them: 1. [read post]
11 Nov 2015, 1:30 am by Jani Ihalainen
What remains key is the refusal of registration based on a single ground under Article 3(1)(e), even if, predominantly, the shape does not fall under all of the grounds. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 1:12 am by Jani Ihalainen
This would apply even under the new Directive.He concluded that "… Article 3(1)(e) of [the] Directive… does potentially apply to signs consisting of the shape of the goods which seek protection for a certain colour". [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 2:04 pm
These rules would include requirements that drones not be operated recklessly, that drones be operated within the line of sight of the person controlling the drone, and that people who operate drones obtain licenses.Notably, the second to last proposal is that "Proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95. [read post]
10 Sep 2017, 9:24 am by Michael Keating
The "three foot rule" provides the following: (625 ILCS 5/11‑703) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑703)Sec. 11‑703. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 2:21 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
§ 41.67(c)(1)(vi).ANDWe do not agree with Frame Media. [read post]