Search for: "State v. Cornish"
Results 41 - 50
of 50
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2010, 5:52 am
McDonald Technology in Litigation: Friend or Foe by Simon V. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 4:31 am
In ruling on no-action requests, the agency staff typically issues a one-page memorandum stating whether it concurs with any of the issuer's arguments. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 5:24 am
(IPKat) Latest batch of geographical indications approved: Marrone di Combai, Bemer Klaben, Cornish Sardines; Formaggio di Fossa di Sogliano, Wi? [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 2:36 pm
See Cornish v. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 7:01 am
– unusually entertaining cases before the CAFC: Cornish v Doll (Patently-O) The Independent Inventor’s Handbook (IP Watchdog) US Patents – Decisions CAFC affirms that patent ownership (and standing) can vest through operation of law: Sky Technologies v SAP AG (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Property, intangible) CAFC en banc: Methods do not have exportable components and therefore method claims cannot be infringed… [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
United States, 880 F.2d 84, 86-87 (8th Cir. 1989).Kansas: Savina v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
(IPKat) EU favours disclosure of computer patents before standards are set (Intellectual Property Watch) Trade Marks Court of First Instance finds RAUTARUUKKI fails to satisfy acquired distinctiveness criterion: Rautaruukki Oyj v OHIM (Class 46) Court of First Instance finds original signature of famous Italian lutist Antonio Stradivari, in arte Stradivarius, of the 17th century, cannot be read by relevant consumers: T‑340/06 (Catch Us If You Can!!!) [read post]
17 Feb 2008, 3:50 pm
Cornish v. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 6:45 am
In a Nov. 1 letter, the senators called on the SEC not to take action on either draft rule and instead allow shareholders to continue filing proxy access resolutions based on the 2006 AFSCME v. [read post]
