Search for: "US v. Stone" Results 541 - 560 of 2,490
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Nov 2011, 3:00 am by John L. Welch
Briefs and other papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.November 3, 2011 - 11 AM: In re Cold Spring Granite Company, Serial No. 77888783 [Section 2(d) refusal of SIERRA WHITE for "granite, cut stone, dimensional stone, slabs of granite, and monumental stone," in view of the registered mark SIERRA STONE for "cast stone"].November 8, 2011 - 2 PM: In re Quicksilver, Inc., Serial No. 77734610 [Section… [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 8:41 am by Laura Orr
A Law Librarian Blog July 27, 2010, post was interesting on several counts:It May Be Just One Letter But … When West Refuses to Correct Scopes v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 6:00 pm by Gordon Firemark
“Eli Stone” series not an infringement of books with character Ely Stone. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 1:09 pm by Gene Quinn
In any event, one of the cases critical to the ultimate decision in this en banc appeal will be California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 3:19 pm
The stone is decorated with figures of idols carved inside shields, carved signs forming V shapes and knapped axe-heads. [read post]
12 Jan 2009, 6:56 am
The Lands of Josef Seegar Stone, No 64 MAP 2006 (Dec. 28, 2007), a decision we analyzed here. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 7:37 am by Danielle Citron
  Here is the piece: Last week’s unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 3:30 am by John L. Welch
Soni, Cancellation No. 92050920 [Petition for cancellation of a registration for ENTELLECT for employment and other counseling services, on the grounds of non-use, abandonment, and likelihood of confusion with the previously-used mark INTELLECT for recruiting and consulting services].April 9, 2013 - 11 AM: Pacific Coast Feather Company v. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 10:34 am by Erik Gerding
Everybody should get their day in court, even institutions Rolling Stone writers hate. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 7:23 pm
The main arguments of the motion turn on defendant KPMG LLP of the US: If Belgium lacks jurisdiction over this part of KPMG (as opposed to fellow defendant KPMG of Belgium) and, because in Belgium civil litigation can only commence after the criminal proceedings have been concluded and KPMG US is not a party to these criminal proceedings, it is therefore unlikely all parties to the current action will also be subject to the action once referred (original emphasis), then Belgium is… [read post]