Search for: "Doe Defendants Nos. 1 and 2"
Results 21 - 40
of 395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2013, 6:20 am
Kensoft had named Sundaram BNP Paribas Home(Defendant 1) and Sundaram Infotech Solution(Defendant 2) as defendants in the case. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 2:58 am
And so the Board denied the Section 2(e)(1) claims.In sum, the Board granted the petitions for cancellation on Section 2(d) grounds, but dismissed the oppositions, which were brought on Section 2(a) and 2(e)(1) grounds.Read comments and post your comments here.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 9:46 am
by Dennis Crouch Steuben Food recently lost its infringement case against Shibuya Hoppmann with the district court holding (1) the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) cannot extend to cover the accused aseptic bottle filling technique and further (2) the reverse doctrine of equivalents shields the defendant against charges of literal infringement. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 5:00 am
In this consolidated appeal, the Board affirmed nine (9) Section 2(e)(1) refusals to register, finding the marks GRAND PRIX SPORTS and eight other GRAND PRIX-formative marks to be merely descriptive of entertainment services related to rugby, soccer, football, and basketball. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 3:34 am
As individual cases proceeded towards trial, however, Plaintiffs indicated their intention of introducing the following evidence: (1) that ObTape was "adulterated" and "misbranded" in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, (2) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation to the FDA, and (3) that the defendant falsely told the FDA that ObTape was substantially equivalent to another medical product. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 10:38 am
(PRSS Nos. 67-69; see also Winkfield's response to RFA Nos. 15 and 18.) [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am
COA18-1016 Filed: 1 October 2019 Cabarrus County, Nos. 15CRS001292, -1293 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. [read post]
11 May 2006, 9:53 am
Nos. 803, 805 (Fed. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 2:00 am
Patents Nos. 5,707,527 and 6,027,639 (see related post here). [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 7:21 am
July 2, 2013). [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 11:49 am
" On its face, §8.01–581.20:1 does not apply to this patient fall case on 2 independent grounds. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 2:33 pm
Saybolt, Nos. 07-4392 & 4429 (Aug.18, 2009), the 3rd Circuit held (1) that filing false claims with the IRS, in violation of 18 USC sect 287, does not require proof that the false claims or statements were "material. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 11:13 am
Patent Nos. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 2:24 pm
Patent Nos. 7,349,540,... [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 9:33 am
., Nos. 08-30223 / 09-30052 (3-16-10) (McKeown joined by Hawkins and Bybee). [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 9:36 am
Id. at 1-2. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 10:16 am
In Vaughn, we stated thatdistrict courts may find facts relevant to sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence, even where the jury acquitted the defendant of that conduct, as long as the judge does not impose (1) a sentence in the belief that the Guidelines are mandatory, (2) a sentence that exceeds the statutory mandatory maximum authorized by the jury verdict, or (3) a mandatory minimum sentence under [21 U.S.C.] [read post]
17 Jan 2023, 5:01 am
The defendants whom she sued in Case Nos. (1)-(4) have a countervailing interest in the integrity of the final judgments entered in those cases. [read post]
18 Aug 2021, 11:51 am
Service Mark Registrations, Nos. 5,040,314 and 5,040,321 for the mark “GET 2 GO. [read post]
2 May 2022, 4:09 am
Cyberman Security, LLC AKA The CyberHero Adventures: Defenders of the Digital Universe, Oppositions Nos. 91249427 and 91253845 [Section 2(d) oppositions to registration of CYBERHERO for video game software and accessories and THE CYBERHERO ADVENTURES DEFENDERS OF THE DIGITAL for "comic books," in view of the registered mark CYBERHERO LEAGUE and the common law mark CYBERHERO for educational gaming services and toys, games, and gaming materials and… [read post]
