Search for: "Du Pont v. Du Pont"
Results 301 - 320
of 568
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2017, 3:04 am
Gallo Winery v. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 6:14 am
., Parfums de Coeur Ltd. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 7:39 am
" Other du Pont Factors: There was insufficient evidence to show any overlap in channels of trade, but the classes of consumers overlap in part. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 3:00 am
Bhd v Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 5:00 am
Ava Enterprises Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:09 am
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 6:24 pm
Teacher Inspired Practical Stuff, Inc., Opposition No. 91164083 (March 7, 2007) [not precedential].The first du Pont factor, the dissimilarity of the marks, was dispositive. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 9:37 am
The marks are identical in their appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, thus the first Du Pont factor favors confusion. [read post]
15 May 2008, 8:54 am
More detail of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2007, 5:48 pm
The Board sided with the Doctor, ruling that the first du Pont did not weigh in favor of a finding of likely confusion. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 2:13 am
The Board began by citing the oft-cited decision in Jacobs v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:09 am
Coach Services, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 7:00 am
Du Pont de Nemours, Louisville Works, (August 26, 2016) (DuPont)—where a divided Board held that actions consistent with an established past practice constitute a change, and therefore require the employer to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to implementation, if the past practice was created under a management-rights clause in a CBA that has expired, or if the disputed actions involved employer discretion. [read post]
8 Jul 2007, 10:17 pm
"Because applicant is seeking a geographically unrestricted registration, we are required to evaluate the du Pont likelihood of confusion factors in terms of nationwide markets. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:59 am
General Motors LLC v. [read post]
15 Feb 2015, 9:13 pm
To the extent that our predecessor court inserted such a requirement into § 102(g) in In re Clemens, we discontinued that requirement as dictum in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 3:46 am
" Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 2:52 am
In-N-Out Burgers v. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 5:05 am
" Campari Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 5:08 am
Vitasoy International Holdings Limited v. [read post]
