Search for: "B&B LLC" Results 4861 - 4880 of 12,234
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2023, 4:29 am
Pickin’ Cotton Communications, LLC, Opposition No. 91267259 (January 23, 2023) [not precedential]. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 4:01 am
If not during prosecution, applicant should file a request for reconsideration after final refusal but before the deadline for appeal  Rule 2.63(b)(3). [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 12:08 pm
At the Bucher Law Group, LLC, we have the experience you need when you are facing criminal charges. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 8:22 am by WSLL
., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONJOSEPH B. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 4:56 am by Mark Astarita
  Without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Instinet also consented to a censure and a cease-and-desist order.The SEC's investigation was conducted by Ronnie B. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 11:25 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Wendy’s Int’l, LLC, No. 22-CV-02880 (HG), 2023 WL 6385346 (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 6:29 am
In re ZeroSix, LLC, Serial No. 88981832 [re-designated as precedential, June 14, 2023] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Finally, as the Agency did not advise Petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal as required by 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b), the Appellate Division said that the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the Petitioner's administrative appeal was time barred. [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 4:25 am
In re Fetal Life, LLC, Serial No. 87938891 (March 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 8:36 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
See, e.g., Appellees’ Br. 2 (“EricInselberg and Inselberg Interactive, LLC do not own anypatents. [read post]
10 May 2019, 7:57 am
In re Arkive Information Management LLC, Serial No. 87487874 (May 8, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 12:14 pm
In Two Pesos, the Court held that, to establish a cause of action for trade dress infringement, a plaintiff must establish that (a) the design is non-functional; (b) the design is inherently distinctive or distinctive by virtue of having acquired secondary meaning; and (c) there is a likelihood of confusion. [read post]