Search for: "In re Mark C. (1992)"
Results 21 - 40
of 214
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2015, 12:37 pm
Washington team’s marks—long time registered, compared to In re Tam where the examiner denied registrations. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm
If they’re trying to hide the fact that they’re running ads, mission accomplished. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:25 pm
at *6-7.Legislative History of Unintentional Delays“Before 1992, §41(c) required the petitioner to show that the late payment was “unavoidable,” and the pre-1992 regulation, 37 C.F.R. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 6:25 am
In In re Mark C., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th 520, Division Two followed its earlier decision in In re Erica R., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th 907&n [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
RE/MAX FIRST CHOICE, LLC, et al., Defendants. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 11:00 am
Martin in 1992. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 10:07 pm
Papikian Enterprises, C 10-05051 JSW (N.D. [read post]
7 May 2015, 11:21 am
” Id. at 2071 (internalquotation marks and citations omitted). [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 1:45 pm
Palmer wrote an initial trust in or around 1992. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 8:11 am
But in 1992, when renewal came due, they abandoned. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
According to […] D4 (filed on December 28, 1992) the MN value of “Ultravis 10” is within the same domain, but its methylvinylidene content is of “about 76%”. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 8:25 am
And the case of In Re M.B. is distinguishable because that case dealt with gifts to the child, not child support pursuant to judicial decree. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 9:51 pm
As a reminder, the following italicized questions come from Jane C. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
Taco Cabana, from 1992. [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:24 am
The court noted that invalidating the registration would only shift the burden to Clearly Food to show that its claimed mark was a mark, and found that Clearly Food could do so. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 7:37 am
Kerr: You’re up. [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 5:59 am
Morris, 977 F.2d 677, 681 n.3 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 12:00 am
IN RE THOMAS A jury found Appellant Thomas R. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 4:45 am
McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1046 (2d Cir. 1992) (house brands can prevent confusion). [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:17 am
She last appeared as one of four residuary beneficiaries in the 1992 will. [read post]
