Search for: "In Re: Mark M." Results 3621 - 3640 of 7,664
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2013, 5:32 am by Rebecca Tushnet
   I’m sure consumers completely understand the refrigerated versus unrefrigerated divide. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 3:19 am by John L. Welch
In re Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc., Serial No. 77590475 (March 28, 2013) [precedential].Section 2(e)(5) Functionality: In M-5 Steel Mfg. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 11:50 am by Michael Froomkin
What follows are not verbatim transcripts, but rather my summaries, unless I put “quote marks” around a text, in which case I did attempt to scribe it verbatim. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 11:32 am
Cf. also the history of the Latin words consecrāre and sacrificium.) [read post]
16 Mar 2013, 12:31 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
What if you listed three boxes without a check mark? [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 3:01 am by John L. Welch
In re Chestek, Serial No 85072195 (March 14, 2013) [not precedential].Applicant Chestek argued that her mark is only suggestive, because it comprises an unnatural, incongruous combination. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 10:07 am by Ritika Singh
” I’m really, really not holding my breath. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 6:50 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
So, if we’re the borrower for the government debt, who do we owe? [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 10:44 am by Angelo A. Paparelli
In most cases, the instructions indicate that fields that do not apply to an employee (or where employees choose not to provide optional information) should be marked “N/A. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 4:49 pm by Ron Coleman
 Note that the last link is from 2010, a year that is three minus the one we’re in now. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 4:25 am by admin
  I’m not able to run back out and feed the meter, and – wham – another parking ticket for me. [read post]