Search for: "In Re: Designation of Judges"
Results 381 - 400
of 9,769
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2011, 11:59 am
The En Banc Panel of Superior Court Judges that heard the re-argument did not consist of any of the Judges who heard the case the first time around. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
District Judge Catherine Blake agreed. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 10:10 am
Barristers are the "designated hitters" of the legal profession. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 3:21 am
I understand that the TTAB is looking to hire another Administrative Trademark Judge. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 10:35 am
Here, Doe brings a design defect claim. [read post]
24 May 2011, 2:46 am
"As to the first design mark, the Board found the design element insufficient to distinguish the marks. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 3:50 am
[Results in first comment].In re TdeltaS Limited, Serial No. 79282075 (March 17, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas Shaw). [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 3:28 am
"]In re Appian Corporation, Serial No. 87890076 (October 14, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 3:13 am
”] In re Forage Holdings LLC, Serial No. 87561681 (July 2, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 9:58 pm
Re: Buckmeyer Estate. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 4:09 am
"Forsyth, who now lives in Dixie County, said the sex-offender designation would have prevented him from attending his children's games or events when they're older. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 3:35 am
The Board found this cast to be analogous to In re Jackson Hole Ski Corp. 190 USPQ 714 (TTAB 1977). [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 4:04 am
In re Spy Optic Inc., Serial No. 85588592 (November 29, 2013) [not precedential]. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 11:58 pm
” In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 (Fed. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 5:00 am
He liked to say that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 5:01 am
Even so, a good-faith judge could certainly decline to distinguish or narrow the relevant precedents. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 3:05 am
In re Shawn Crenshaw, Inc., Serial No. 86328394 (April 5, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lynch).The Marks: The Board found that the applied-for mark is dominated by the word OVATION. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 2:04 am
If the applied-for mark is part of a single, unified design, then the removal of the portion is an impermissible mutilation of the mark as used.Judge Anthony R. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 11:16 pm
Camille Lignières and Ms. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:44 am
In re T.S. [read post]
