Search for: "In Re Cogent, Inc."
Results 41 - 60
of 126
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2024, 6:26 am
See In re Equifax Inc. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 11:32 am
In re Medtronic, Inc. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 5:09 pm
In re M.M., 733 N.E.2d at 14. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 5:43 pm
Midland Credit Management, Inc. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 1:18 am
Techhealth, Inc. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
In fact, it almost reads like a restatement of the concept of res ipsa loquitur, which had been done away with in Fontaine v. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 3:00 am
In re Chippendales USA, Inc., Serial No. 78666598 (March 25, 2009) [precedential].Observing that application of the packaging/product design dichotomy [the former may be inherently distinctive, the latter cannot be] is not feasible when considering a service mark, the Board stated that it "must simply assess whether it is reasonable to assume that the consumer is predisposed to view the trade dress as a source indicator. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 7:07 am
., Editor, First Reference Inc. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 9:44 am
See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. [read post]
28 Feb 2006, 11:42 pm
(TTABlog discussion here).In re Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1649 (TTAB 2005). [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:13 pm
See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 5:01 am
(TTABlogged here).In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., Serial Nos. 78711311 and 78730624 (October 29, 2007) [not precedential]. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 6:58 pm
Cir. 1983), this court observed that “evidence of secondary considerations may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 2:26 pm
(In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102 ["appellant . . . has not met her burden of showing error by an adequate record"]; Christie v. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 1:37 pm
The court noted that the decision is contrary to the conclusion reached in the Ninth Circuit in In re NVIDIA Corp. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 8:58 pm
Res. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 10:31 am
Cir. 2017) (remanding in view of the Board’s failure to “sufficiently explain and support [its] conclusions”); In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 9:00 pm
But his obviousness argument is cogent. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 7:36 am
See http://www.factsetmergers.com. 4 In In re Cogent, Inc. [read post]
