Search for: "Moore v. Marks"
Results 21 - 40
of 619
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2008, 5:14 pm
GRANT V. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 9:48 pm
Moore decision doesn’t have any real impact in Texas. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 1:52 pm
See Wiwa v. [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 6:31 pm
See Yari v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 12:21 am
Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B.U.L. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:18 pm
At the time of that report, while EXCELLENCE was still moored at a cold storage dock, the Unalaska Fire Department marked out a 500-foot safety zone and tried to reduce the escaping ammonia vapors by spraying EXCELLENCE with water. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 4:41 am
On the morning of July 15, 2010, Officer Mark Moore of the Tulsa Police Department (`TPD’) responded to a call from DeGraffenreid's residence relating to child pornography. [read post]
16 May 2023, 4:00 am
We affirm the three-judge panel’s Harper v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 11:58 am
" Rally Manufacturing, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 6:36 am
Commil USA, LLC v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 8:15 am
The decision in Frolow v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 7:18 pm
Legal Reasoning (Lourie, Schall, Moore)Background35 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 3:02 am
As the Supreme Court recently said in B&B Hardware v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 3:51 am
Moore v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 5:27 am
Moore v. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 12:52 pm
And it sentenced Moore to 180 months imprisonment followed by 240 months supervised release.U.S. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 10:37 am
Stauffer v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 12:31 pm
In Moore v. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 11:12 pm
Muller-Moore will ask a federal district court judge to declare that the “Eat More Kale” mark is not infringing or diluting Chick-fil-A’s “Eat Mor Chikin” mark, since a federal court decision declaring no likelihood of confusion would compel the USPTO to withdraw the likelihood of confusion refusal based on Chick-fil-A’s “Eat Mor Chikin” mark. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 10:40 pm
I also question the ex parte listing (without underlying support) of thirty-one former third-party marks containing EAT MORE, whose owners/users “agreed to cease and permanently desist their use of, and in several instances have withdrawn federal application to register, the marks . . . . [read post]
