Search for: "In re Applied Materials, Inc."
Results 221 - 240
of 2,705
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2020, 1:04 pm
Fresh Market, Inc., 2020 WL 3489369, No. 19-CV-24245-PCH (S.D. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm
Materiality is measured by what the PTO demands of those who apply for and prosecute patent applications. [read post]
14 Dec 2013, 9:18 pm
(“Cross Match”) asserts that Suprema, Inc. and Mentalix, Inc. violated 19 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 2:54 am
In re Thomas, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1021, 1024 (TTAB 2006) (citing Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 11:18 am
Does Text Spam Class Action Against Jiffy Lube Moves Forward – In re Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., Text Spam Litigation California Appeals Court Says Emails That Don’t Identify Sender Violate State Spam Statute – Balsam v. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 4:12 am
See e.g., In re Edward Ski Products, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 201 (TTAB 1999) [no evidence that the configuration of a ski mask promoted as an indication of origin]; and In re Pingel Enterprises Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1811 (TTAB 1988) [no advertising or promotion of trademark significance of the product configuration]. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 4:15 am
” Applied Telematics, Inc. at *4. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 1:40 pm
Defendant Cutera, Inc. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 11:11 am
This rule applies in other contexts as well. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 10:42 am
Amax Lighting, Inc. and In re Driven Innovations, Inc. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 10:42 am
Amax Lighting, Inc. and In re Driven Innovations, Inc. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 7:17 pm
Apotex Inc., No. 2013-1027 (Fed. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
Because of that (rather questionable) conclusion, any plaintiff in a securities fraud suit is “presumed” to rely on any material disinformation.That's the theory. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:31 pm
”In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289,1294 (Fed. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 2:50 am
H & C Milcor, Inc., f/k/a Aquatico of Texas, Inc., Opposition No. 91182064 (August 6, 2013) [precedential].The Board first considered Opposer's contention that Applicant impermissibly amended its original drawing to that shown above, materially altering the mark. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 1:53 pm
Re Hemostemix Inc.[1] carries important lessons for companies contemplating a private placement amidst shareholder agitation. [read post]
25 May 2011, 6:02 am
Shepard, 10-925, for CSX Transportation, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 9:47 am
The case cite is John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 2:39 am
" In re Vibrynt, Inc., Serial No. 77701760 (July 20, 2012) [not precedential].The marks: Vibrynt contended that PEEK is the dominant portion of the cited mark, but the Board found the marks similar in their entireties. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 12:45 am
In Galloway v William Frederick Frazer, Google Inc t/a YouTube and others, Mr Justice Horner in the High Court of Northern Ireland refused an application by Google Inc. [read post]
