Search for: "In Re John D." Results 421 - 440 of 8,854
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2009, 11:00 pm
Accordingly, the fourth du Pont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.Balancing the relevant du Pont factors, the Board found confusion likely and therefore affirmed the refusal to register.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
9 Aug 2009, 12:02 am
For some reason, the Board reached back to April 2009 and re-designated its dueling alligator Section 2(d) decision as precedential. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 3:31 pm
John Huizinga also wonders if we’re calculating the costs. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 3:20 am
In re John Michael Brack, Serial No. 85483943 (March 31, 2015) [precedential].Examining Attorney Amy E. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 7:30 am
I usually blow them off, but I said I'd do this one, on the second inquiry, because it's John McCain. [read post]
8 Dec 2019, 11:18 am
John-Mark Iyi, Re-thinking the Authority of the UN Security Council to Refer Nationals of Non-party States to the ICC Konstantinos D. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 2:42 pm by Charles J. Reid, Jr.
It is, as John Thavis wrote, an earthquake. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 3:59 am by Chris Seaton
” “With what you paid us, we’re happy to oblige,” Jesse returned. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 5:00 am
"Considering all the evidence, the Board found confusion likely and therefore it affirmed the refusal.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 5:11 pm
" In re 1175856 Ontario Ltd., Serial No. 78442207 (October 26, 2006).The Board therefore reversed the mutilation refusal.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 8:49 pm
This week Patent Baristas talked with John LeGuyader, Director of TC 1600 at the U.S. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 9:51 am by Ron Coleman
John Welch reports, at the TTABlog, about what you’d think would be a no-brainer: The Board affirmed a refusal to register the configuration shown below, for “electric skillets,” finding that Preston’s proof of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) was inadequate. [read post]