Search for: "In re F. E." Results 5281 - 5300 of 7,240
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2011, 2:20 am by Kelly
(TTABlog) TTAB affirms mere descriptiveness refusal of JEWELRYSUPPLY.COM: No tacking and not enough 2(f): In re Jewelry Supply Inc (TTABlog) TTAB affirms refusal of the “Eddie Bauer Guarantee” for failure to function as a service mark: In re Eddie Bauer Licensing Services LLC (TTABlog) TTAB dismisses fraud-based opposition for failure to prove intent to deceive: Daniel Ryan Way and CMDW, Inc. v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 3:06 pm
This, says Arris, creates a risk that Cable One will cease purchasing Arris' CMTS and E-MTA products for its VoIP operations. [read post]
20 May 2011, 1:06 pm by WIMS
The Subparts, which refer to specific industrial sectors and operations, covered by the final action include: A,C, D, E, F, G, H, K, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, Y, V, X, T, Z, AA, BB, CC, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, LL, MM, NN, OO, PP, and TT. [read post]
20 May 2011, 9:00 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
Article 5 provides that extradition shall not be granted if the executive authority of the Requested State determines that the re- quest is politically motivated. [read post]
19 May 2011, 9:12 pm
" In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. [read post]
19 May 2011, 3:25 pm by Elie Mystal
Hours will vary but generally will require 8-8 M-F and two full weekends per month. [read post]
19 May 2011, 9:15 am by Eric Schweibenz
Cir. 2003) and In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1975) in support of this proposition. [read post]
19 May 2011, 7:22 am by Kenneth Vercammen
Conviction under (a)(1) or (a)(2) might be considered a CIMT, however if convicted under (a)(1) and the record re flect R, would probably NOT be considered a CIMT; conviction under (a)(3) might be considered a CIMT. [read post]
19 May 2011, 5:44 am by Jack D
Par ailleurs, pour la première fois, vous pourrez également pratiquer la « Fête des Voisins » sur votre lieu de travail à midi. [read post]
18 May 2011, 3:19 am by John L. Welch
In re Eddie Bauer Licensing Services LLC, Serial No. 77585551 (May 2, 2011) [not precedential].Bauer sought registration under Section 2(f), claiming continuous and substantially exclusive use since 1984. [read post]
18 May 2011, 2:59 am
"They say, 'We'll make it as pink as we're able to,'" he says. [read post]
17 May 2011, 10:37 pm
In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. [read post]
17 May 2011, 9:56 pm by Sylvain Métille
Filed under: Google, Localisation, Logiciel, Protection des données, Sphère privée, Téléphonie [read post]
17 May 2011, 6:31 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
See n re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971); In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. [read post]