Search for: "In Re: Mark M." Results 4901 - 4920 of 7,669
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Missing the idea that you can break up one function into a series of functions a number of times—the levels of abstraction problem that we’re used to in © but not in patent.Fed. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 9:31 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Australia allows you to say ‘I’m not using this mark in this area, but if someone else does, I will make a dilution claim. [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 11:05 am by Rebecca Tushnet
What I’m suggesting doesn’t increase scope of author’s §106 rights just because of objection. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 6:29 am by Casey Flaherty
Inside and outside counsel need only to both plug in the MMM (sadly, my branding team tells me that M&M, 3M, and M3 all seem to be taken). [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
: (IAM)DSS case: Europe’s patent demise: (IPEG),EU calls on US to fulfill TRIPS obligations re copyright: (The IP Factor),How to safeguard unprotected know-how in FP7 projects: (IPR Helpdesk),European Council calls for a free movement of knowledge: (IPR-Helpdesk),Madrid amendments for double-treatied Union members: (IPKat),Proposed Europe-wide rules governing biometric passports are still unsatisfactory despite some concessions, according to European Data Protection Supervisor:… [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 12:01 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
People in US say “I’m sorry” all the time and teach it to our children. [read post]
1 Jan 2019, 3:12 pm
  2019 marks the fourth year of an important change, in which many of the most important branches of the faith came together to produce a unified letter. [read post]
7 May 2012, 12:06 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
INTA: Exploring the Outer Limits of Trademark Law Moderator: Megan M. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 9:00 pm
Not that I'm speaking from experience … Ian Hull: You're hearing this from the expert, let me tell you. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 5:11 am by Benjamin Wittes
I responded on Twitter with a series of short comments (which I’m merging here for readability purposes): I’m bewildered by the suggestion that the government’s secrecy about drones means there has not been a debate. [read post]