Search for: "A. J. Industries, Inc. v. the United States" Results 381 - 400 of 799
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(Spicy IP) Israel English version of Israel patent database available (The IP Factor) Israel Patent Office gears up for filing online (The IP Factor) Adjudicator of IP rules AMERICAN APPAREL lacks distinguishing features (The IP Factor) ‘Ein Gedi’ not acceptable as a word mark (The IP Factor) Japan Japan starts new patent prosecution highways with Austrian Patent Office and IP Office of Singapore (Managing Intellectual Property) Libya Libya cuts trade mark filing… [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 9:08 pm by Eric Schweibenz
Intervening Rights The ID found that Respondents had “not established, by clear and convincing evidence, that products substantially identical to the accused products were made, purchased, used, or imported into the United States prior to the issuance of a reexamination certificate of the ‘097 patent. [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 7:06 am
Most notably, he served for more than a year as lead technology consultant to the major tobacco companies in United States of America v. [read post]
27 May 2015, 3:41 pm
 Cisco looks forward to the retrial.After the verdict in the second trial which dealt with inducement, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Global-Tech Appliances Inc v SEB SA (2011). [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
– ‘Rioja’ GI survives (Class 46) Suriname Impersonator acquitted of attempting to deceive paying customers into thinking she is the true Toni Braxton (1709 Copyright Blog) Switzerland Some data on 3D trademarks in Switzerland (Class 46) Shapes that made it, and those that didn’t (Class 46) United Kingdom EWHC: Revocation proceedings not an abuse of process even if not commercially justified: TNS Group Holdings Ltd v Neilsen Media… [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
Beer Institute, Inc.[17] involved a Connecticut statute that required out-of-state beer shippers to affirm that prices posted for products sold to Connecticut wholesalers were, in the relevant period, no higher than prices in bordering states.[18] The Court invalidated these price affirmation schemes on the narrow grounds that they had the "practical effect of controlling . [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 10:00 pm
United States, 848 F.2d 362, 364 [2d Cir1988] ). [read post]
1 May 2022, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
On the same day Steyn J heard an application in the case of Ince Group v Persons Unknown On 27 April 2022 Nicklin J heard a mode of trial application in the case of Blake v Fox. [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 10:44 am by Schachtman
United States Food and Drug Admin., Civ. [read post]