Search for: "John Doe Inc 1-2"
Results 361 - 380
of 2,467
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2021, 10:20 am
John George, commanding general of the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command; and Peter Highnam, deputy director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 3:28 am
Seldom does a product configuration clear the Section 2(f) hurdle, and this Timberland boot design joined the list of losers. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 3:48 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am
Mike Nagata, senior vice president of CACI International Inc.; retired Lt. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 8:09 am
By John M. [read post]
15 Mar 2021, 9:42 am
The subcommittee will hear testimony from the SIGAR, John Sopko. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 1:10 pm
[R]ational investors or buyers would not spend [$2] to get something worth $1. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 3:30 am
SolarWindow filed again in 2018 and was rejected again on both Section 2(e)(1) and res judicata grounds. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 10:44 pm
The Justices split 8-1. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 8:18 am
The client did not pay for these securities, and does not own them. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 5:46 am
De Walt, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 4:12 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 8:54 am
John Thune does this without reforming Section 230, as does the draft bill, circulated last year by Democratic Rep. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 6:33 pm
Arthrex, Inc. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 10:17 am
Second, the majority rejected the Board’s argument that reopening does not qualify for judicial review because it is simply a “refusal to make a new determination” of rights or liabilities, like the denial of reopening in Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 6:17 am
RStudio Inc., 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1825, 1827 n.2 (T.T.A.B. 2013). [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:40 pm
See John Bruce Lewis and Dustin M. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 10:46 am
Term Limits, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2021, 2:23 pm
App’x —-, 2020 WL 6165909, at *1-2 (2 [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 3:43 am
" Consequently, the Board concluded that MAMA BEAR does not serve as a designation of source for Applicant’s clothing products and is unregistrable under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Lanham Act.Read comments and post your comment here. [read post]
