Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 2601 - 2620
of 9,567
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2017, 1:36 pm
Does the word “including” have that effect? [read post]
19 May 2017, 6:30 am
If this means the new F-35 fighter jets, then those sales should be considered. [read post]
19 May 2014, 9:00 am
And here’s the AdvoKat General’s Opinion.1. [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 10:08 am
J.A. 1–78. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 1:22 am
| Google cannot hide behind its algorithms, German court finds | Does the InfoSoc Directive envisage digital exhaustion? [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 12:02 pm
These were insufficient, according to the court, because they were neither physical objects or substances nor representative of physical objects or substances.Concurring OpinionIn his concurring opinion, Senior Judge Mayer stressed three separate points: (1) the subject matter requirements of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 3:36 am
" (p.35). [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 6:40 am
Such a registration is subject to the same grounds for cancellation as a registration issued under Section 1 or Section 44(e), including abandonment. [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 4:54 am
(The total excludes municipal jails, which the state does not regulate.) [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 9:17 am
For example, the sheer volume of data may make its production expensive, but that alone does not bring it within the scope of Rule 26(b)(2)(B). [read post]
25 Feb 2022, 2:41 am
Executive Order 283 does not mandate testing after proof of vaccination is submitted, but it does not foreclose it. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 6:59 am
Claim 1 literally encompasses both DMF and MMF. [read post]
13 May 2014, 7:55 pm
Packard’s applied-for patent claims indefinite, and therefore not in compliance with the statutory drafting requirements of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 8:56 pm
”); see also id. at 948 n.1 (explaining waiver does not apply to verdicts under Rule 49(a), but it does apply to verdicts under Rule 49(b)). [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 3:07 am
Section 2(e)(1) - Mere Descriptiveness: WYHA? [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 10:22 am
Follow her on Twitter. 1. [read post]
28 Mar 2023, 9:48 am
Using the mark in a form differing from the registered sign is sufficient under EU law if such use does not alter the distinctive character of the registered sign (Art. 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001). [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 11:09 am
The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not engage in an analysis of its various details (OHIM v Shaker (C‑334/05 P)).The Applicant had submitted that there could be no likelihood of confusion because there was no similarity between the goods. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 8:48 pm
Why prop up (how does one spell “BAIL OUT”?) [read post]
