Search for: "In Re Pontes"
Results 41 - 60
of 483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2018, 2:51 am
The Board concluded that this was a neutral du Pont factor as well. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 2:00 pm
If you have questions about the calculation of your Chapter 13 plan payment contact a Ponte Vedra Bankruptcy Attorney or call us at (904) 685-1200 for a free consultation. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 3:56 am
" See, e.g., In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (TTAB 2001). [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 5:57 am
" See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1024 [emphasis added]. [read post]
"Iowa 2020: Biden and Sanders neck and neck in Democratic Field, Mayor Pete jumps to double digits."
25 Mar 2019, 6:33 am
We're still talking about Joe Biden, but who remembers Pete Du Pont? [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 4:15 am
Under U.S. trademark law and court precedent, determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion involves weighing a number of factors (13 factors to be exact), known as the “Dupont factors,” set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 12:17 pm
In this case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed the refusal to register Applicant’s ALLEGIANCE STAFFING mark (disclaiming STAFFING) for temporary employment agency service on the basis of likelihood of confusion based predominantly on the thirteenth “catch-all” du Pont factor. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 12:17 pm
In this case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed the refusal to register Applicant’s ALLEGIANCE STAFFING mark (disclaiming STAFFING) for temporary employment agency service on the basis of likelihood of confusion based predominantly on the thirteenth “catch-all” du Pont factor. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 7:55 am
Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 4:20 am
Cir. 1991) ("We know of no reason why, in a particular case, a single du Pont factor may not be dispositive"), the Board dismissed the opposition.Read comments and post your comment here.TTABlog comment: Why is this precedential? [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 2:33 am
Despite Applicant Genworth Financial's vigorous arguments, the Board found that none of the relevant du Pont factors favored Applicant. [read post]
15 May 2008, 7:42 am
E.I. du Pont v. [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 7:19 am
” In re du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 3:06 am
In re Iris Data Services, Inc., Serial No. 86455558 (April 24, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lykos).The Marks: The cited mark is registered in standard character form, and could be used in the same font, color, and design as the applied-for mark. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 3:55 am
See In re Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353 (CCPA 1969). [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 2:08 am
" For once, a "sophisticated purchaser" argument carried some weight in the Board's du Pont analysis. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 1:36 am
The Board found this to be persuasive evidence, under the 6th du Pont factor, that "dash" is a weak term in the dog-washing field. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 3:41 am
The Board, however, observed that the word portion is not always dominant, citing several prior Board decisions in which the design was deemed dominant.The Board noted that in In re Viterra, the CAFC acknowledged the general rule when finding that the word portion predominated in the registered mark X-Seed & Design (shown below).But in Viterra, the CAFC also found no inconsistency with the Board's ruling in In re White Rock Distilleries, Inc., where the Board found no… [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 11:07 pm
In re Davey Products Pty Ltd., Serial No. 77029776 (August 7, 2009) [precedential].This post will not regurgitate all the details of the Board's analysis regarding the single digit factors. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 2:55 am
Re-enter Ms. [read post]
