Search for: "Mattel Inc." Results 321 - 340 of 503
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 May 2015, 3:57 am
Mattel Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1868, 1888 (TTAB 2011) (citing Toro Co., 61 USPQ2d at 1183). [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 12:45 pm by James Innocent
The Soothing Motions Seat is imported to the US and distributed by the New York company Fisher-Price, a subsidiary of Mattel Inc. and a big name in the “stuff for babies” market. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 11:00 am
Another warning sign can be seen by customers of American Girl, an upscale toy store chain owned by Mattel. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 10:04 am
Mattel, Inc., 2000 WL 730350 (E.D.Pa. 2000); Superior Merchandise Co., Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 9:08 am by Kurt J. Schafers
Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), the Supreme Court stated that “[w]e now hold that §§ 10 and 11 respectively provide the FAA’s exclusive grounds for expedited vacatur and modification. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 4:05 pm
Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989, Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito joined in full and in which Justice Scalia joined in large measure. [read post]
12 May 2010, 8:21 am
Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) as an independent basis for vacatur or modification of arbitral awards, or as a judicial gloss on the enumerated grounds set forth in Section 10 of the FAA. [read post]
30 May 2007, 1:58 pm
Mattel, Inc., in which cert. was granted yesterday) preempts provisions of a Maine law that would require shippers which deliver tobacco products to, among other things, obtain the signature of the purchaser and, if he or she is under the age of twenty-seven, verify the purchaser's age. [read post]
12 May 2010, 8:21 am
Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) as an independent basis for vacatur or modification of arbitral awards, or as a judicial gloss on the enumerated grounds set forth in Section 10 of the FAA. [read post]
31 Aug 2019, 6:46 am
  Background The applicant, Mattel, Inc. invoked before the EUIPO invalidity division Article 25(1)(b) of the Community designs regulation (CDR) in conjunction with Article 4(1) and Articles 5 and 6 CDR stating that: prior design had been disclosed more than 12 months before the priority date of the contested RCD;the contested RCD lacked novelty;the contested RCD lacked individual character. [read post]