Search for: "In re Dominic F."
Results 221 - 240
of 652
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2010, 10:09 pm
Akro, 45 F.3d at 1545-46; see also Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
See In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (Fed. [read post]
25 May 2012, 3:00 am
Mark F. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 9:38 am
However, “[i]f a will is tainted by undue influence, it may be overturned. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 1:06 pm
See 701 F. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 12:29 am
See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1209, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 9:08 am
Kibler was wrong to argue that the court should “focus on the dominant features of each mark and disregard the non-dominant features”; that’s precisely what the anti-dissection rule forbids. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 12:47 pm
In re Donald A. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 12:57 pm
This is the construct that turns Fanon's notion of racial essentialism on its head (F. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 4:29 pm
He suggested that antitrust law has become overly dominated by high economic theory, as opposed to a real-world understanding of business activity. [read post]
23 May 2014, 2:26 pm
The Board conducted the likelihood of confusion analysis according to the thirteen factors set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 8:25 am
See In re Dennis Binkley, Serial No. 86429294 (May 30, 2017) [not precedential]. [read post]
11 Mar 2007, 8:20 am
Für die beschleunigte Prüfung ist eine gesonderte Gebühr zu entrichten. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 8:05 pm
Court Rules, comment 6.1 to R. 2:5-1(f)(1); Campagna v. [read post]
21 Dec 2019, 6:07 pm
Koch, 450 F.3d at 713. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 10:17 am
., In re Cyclobenzaprine, 676 F.3d at1070–71. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 11:19 am
Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 5:01 am
As my article notes, courts do make exceptions to the litigate-in-your-own-name rule, and there are plausible arguments that pseudonymous litigation should be more commonly allowed; but this is still a good articulation of the dominant view: Pilots X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, & M sued Boeing about its 737 MAX airplanes. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 2:58 pm
PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 1988). [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 7:07 am
., 10 F. [read post]
