Search for: "Du Pont v. Du Pont"
Results 541 - 560
of 568
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2007, 1:06 am
Volkswagen AG v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 8:50 pm
It began its du Pont analysis with the fifth factor: the fame of the mark. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 8:49 pm
[Swimming through the du Pont factors can wear a blogger out.] [read post]
8 Apr 2007, 3:16 pm
" In re Fiesta Palms, LLC, Serial No. 76595049 (March 17, 2007) [precedential].Rolling through the du Pont factors, the Board considered the services to be "identical inasmuch as they overlap. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 4:00 am
The motion was filed after the close of the testimony period, and the Board found that B&D had unduly delayed in filing its motion.Turning to the du Pont analysis, the Board rooted its way through the record evidence, beginning with B&D's family-of-marks claim. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 8:32 pm
Jansen Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 11:52 pm
Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 6:24 pm
Teacher Inspired Practical Stuff, Inc., Opposition No. 91164083 (March 7, 2007) [not precedential].The first du Pont factor, the dissimilarity of the marks, was dispositive. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 6:48 pm
"The Board, in its mandatory romp through the du Pont factors, first considered the marks. [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 10:01 pm
Du Pont E.I. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 3:24 pm
Licensing Corp. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 6:37 pm
Therefore, this du Pont factor "clearly favors the position of opposer herein. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 7:10 pm
The Wet Seal, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2007, 8:01 pm
Miss Universe L.P. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2007, 5:48 pm
The Board sided with the Doctor, ruling that the first du Pont did not weigh in favor of a finding of likely confusion. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 9:36 pm
Barbara's Bakery, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 11:58 pm
" Applicant GoSMILE argued that the first du Pont factor, the dissimilarity of the marks, was dispositive. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 6:13 pm
"Considering all of the relevant du Pont factors, the board concluded that confusion is not likely, and it dismissed the opposition.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 8:13 pm
Kohler Co. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2006, 7:11 pm
Truescents LLC v. [read post]
