Search for: "In re Application of Google Inc"
Results 41 - 60
of 628
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2022, 3:23 am
In re Layla Sleep, Inc., Serial No.88359361 (June 24, 2002) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 2:29 am
You may find some discussion of that fact by conducting a GOOGLE brand search for "Chubby's Colorado. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 12:39 pm
Google Inc., No. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJM, E.D. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 9:59 am
” This is a re-evaluation of the “same interest” test, where the focus is on advancing the interests of class members and avoiding [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 6:44 pm
In a series of cases including In re Nuijten, In re Comiskey and In re Bilski, the Patent and Trademark Office has argued in favor of imposing new restrictions on the scope of patentable subject matter set forth by Congress in § 101 of the Patent Act. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 12:11 am
The whole thing is worth reading, but here’s a snippet: As the Supreme Court explained in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 3:40 am
Applicant submitted a summary of the results of a Google brand search, purportedly showing that "many organizations in Florida ... utilize 'gulfstream' in their names. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 10:48 pm
Allen, the founder of Ancestry.com Inc., who tracks the numbers as Google+’s “unofficial statistician. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 10:00 am
In re Maplegate Media Group, Inc., Serial No. 78814834 (June 10, 2008) [not precedential]. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 10:49 am
You’re allowed to contribute to Android and allowed to use it for little hobbies, but in nearly every area, the deck is stacked against anyone trying to use Android without Google’s blessing. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 8:46 am
by Dennis Crouch In re Google, 22-1611 (Fed. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 3:17 pm
" [2] Notably, the company's solution was to re-brand that service using its core "Google" name. [read post]
23 Nov 2008, 7:13 pm
Excel Commc'ns, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 11:46 am
The court treats this as a straightforward application of the MTM v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 2:39 pm
Google, Inc., 2007 U.S. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 4:09 pm
It is now over ten years since the landmark decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] 2 AC 457) established the misuse of private information (“MOPI”) tort (any lingering doubt that it might not be a tort has been eradicated by the Court of Appeal decision in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311). [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 3:29 pm
Case citation: In re: Google Inc. [read post]
1 May 2021, 11:45 am
If you’re facing a copyright issue in Minneapolis or St. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 5:11 am
In re Lawrence Foods, Inc., Serial No. 86937640 (July 20, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:43 am
In re Napa Valley Foods Inc., Serial Nos. 77627932, 77627933, 77627934 and 77627935 (February 22, 2011) [not precedential].Applicant did not dispute the geographic descriptiveness of "Napa Valley," but asserted that "Napa" is not the same thing:Applicant relies on definitions of “napa” as meaning “a very soft glove leather made from the skin of a sheep, kid or goat” and “Chinese cabbage. [read post]
