Search for: "B&B LLC"
Results 2561 - 2580
of 12,231
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2015, 6:47 am
" Vehicle Operation Technologies LLC v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 11:03 am
See Membler.com LLC v. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 8:48 am
Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 6:07 am
Engelmayer granted-in-part the motion to strike certain affirmative defenses and to dismiss counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity in plaintiff Orientview Technologies LLC's patent infringement action against Seven for All Mankind, LLC ("7FAM"). [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 1:26 pm
Hyperblock LLC (Contract Breach)Ten Eyck v. [read post]
15 Jul 2024, 6:45 am
The case is Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 2:01 am
Brands LLC, 137 S. [read post]
22 May 2020, 8:19 am
International Value Advisers, LLC, May 20, 2020, Parker, B., and Rubenstein v. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 7:59 am
The first registration is for the word mark “GRAVITY” and the second is for the following figurative mark: In light of a declaration of invalidity submitted by Gravity Products LLC, the Hearing Officer declared the appellant’s trade mark invalid on the basis of a likelihood of confusion, pursuant to section 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 8:52 am
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(7). [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm
(c) 2017 Cross Nadel LLC and www.crossnadel.com. [read post]
5 Sep 2021, 8:15 am
Case Citation: Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm
(c) 2017 Cross Nadel LLC and www.crossnadel.com. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 4:47 am
§ 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 , 17 C.F.R. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm
(c) 2017 Cross Nadel LLC and www.crossnadel.com. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 12:12 pm
Serv., LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-2064 (Mar. 24, 2016) (rejecting conditional certification under FLSA); Kraft v. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 4:45 am
“In November 2018, “Toll Brothers, Inc. s/h/a Toll Brothers, Inc. a/k/a Toll GC LLC a/k/a Toll GC II, LLC” and Castanon moved to dismiss the underlying action pursuant to CPLR 306- b, asserting that they had not been served within 120 days after the complaint was filed. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 10:38 am
In determining Applicant’s motion, the Board considered Trademark Rule 2.102(b), which provides that an opposition filed by a party different than the party that obtained the extension of time will not be automatically rejected if it is established that (1) the Opposer is in privity with the party that secured the extension or (2) if the misidentification of the potential opposer in the extension request was by mistake. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 10:38 am
In determining Applicant’s motion, the Board considered Trademark Rule 2.102(b), which provides that an opposition filed by a party different than the party that obtained the extension of time will not be automatically rejected if it is established that (1) the Opposer is in privity with the party that secured the extension or (2) if the misidentification of the potential opposer in the extension request was by mistake. [read post]
