Search for: "US v. Coats"
Results 561 - 580
of 1,075
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2007, 8:10 am
L&P Property Management Co., Opposition No. 91151220 [Likelihood of confusion between Applicant's mark HARTEX for carpet underlay, and Opposer's mark HARTEX for pale crepe rubber and natural latex rubber].January 16, 2007 - 10 AM: In re Wieland Dental + Technik GmbH, Serial No. 76514103 [Section 2(d) refusal of REFLEX for veneering material for dental use, in view of the identical registered mark for orthodontic appliances].January 17, 2007 - 10 AM: In re McTech Group, Inc.,… [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 10:01 am
” United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 3:26 pm
American Coatings Assn., Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 9:26 pm
ALZA Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 3:55 pm
In Jones v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 3:27 am
See Muniauction, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 4:30 pm
Jackson and United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 8:26 am
Center 3700Decided: March 18, 2016The Board reversed here because a "broad general statement" of motivation is impermissible use of a per se rule. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 9:04 am
Center 3700Decided: March 18, 2016The Board reversed here because a "broad general statement" of motivation is impermissible use of a per se rule. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 9:01 pm
Iancu v. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 9:00 pm
" Coates [v. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 11:55 am
See In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1730 (TTAB 2018). [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 11:22 am
But today in Turner v. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 9:19 am
Coatings, Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 26 (9th Cir.) [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 1:16 pm
In L'Oréal SA and others v Bellure NV and others [2010] EWCA Civ 535[noted here by the IPKat] a comparative advertisement was held to constitute unfair practice where one brand had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of another well-known brand by free-riding on the coat tails of their success. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 12:16 pm
” Peter Swire summarized his testimony on U.S. surveillance law before the Irish High Court in Schrems v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 8:53 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 1:11 am
And so on to Schedule V, which includes controlled substances with a low potential for abuse, many uses in medical treatment, and low potential for physical or psychological dependance. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:00 am
Sometimes elegance is refusal.The average consumer and the nature of the purchasing actAs per Sabel BV v Puma AG, the average consumer normally perceives a trade mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse the various details. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 2:31 am
CUSTOMS Logo Barred by Sections 2(a) and 2(b)Section 2(b) - US Flag, Coat of Arms, or Insignia:Precedential No. 27: U.S. [read post]
