Search for: "John Doe - 1" Results 4741 - 4760 of 14,615
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Feb 2015, 3:28 am
Read comments and post your comment hereTTABlog note: I haven't figured out why the Board did not consolidate these appeals and issue one opinion.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 7:38 am by Ben
Endemol argued that "Go to Top 101" had similar scenic designs as "1 vs 100" and just like the foreign show, made three "helps" available to contestants. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 4:06 am
” There is no requirement that the Office prove actual competitor use or need; it is well established that even if an applicant is the only user of a merely descriptive term, this does not justify registration of that term. . . . [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 6:00 am by Jonathan H. Adler
This is not a particularly controversial interpretation of Article II, section 1. [read post]
17 May 2017, 12:09 pm by Lovechilde
"(And let's not forget the prima facie case that Trump has violated Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, i.e., the “Emoluments Clause,” based on allegations that he is profiting from the Trump Organizations business dealings with foreign government )The tepid responses from Republican leadership is -- to use their language -- "troubling" (Susan Collins) and "disturbing" (John McCain). [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 6:00 am
Few product configurations reach the finish line.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
  Much of the research he presents "has been ignored or overlooked in the existing scholarship on Section Three, and most of it does not appear in any of the briefs in Trump v. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 12:08 pm
Attorney Paul Nicoletti, copyright counsel for Plaintiff Patrick Collins, filed a complaint in June 2012 against thirteen "John Doe" Defendants identified only by their Internet Protocol addresses. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 5:08 am
Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion: Precedential No. 34: TTAB Dismisses Monster Energy's Section 2(d) Claim On Summary Judgment Due to DIssimilarity of Design Marks Precedential No. 29: After an Exhausting 2(d) Analysis, TTAB Finds HME (Stylized) Confusable with KME for Building Products Precedential No. 27: TTAB Renders Split Decision in Appeal From Section 2(d) Refusal of IMPACT for Various Healthcare Services Precedential No. 12: TTAB Hands Win to MLBPA and Aaron Judge In… [read post]