Search for: "US v. Coats"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,079
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2013, 4:07 am
[The Board dismissed this opposition to ARMORSTONE for "clear and pigmented coatings used in the nature of paint; Glazes; House paint; Interior paint; Mixed paints; Paint for concrete floors; Paint primers; Paint sealers; Paint thinner; Paints; Paints and lacquers; Pavement striping paint; Epoxy coating for use on concrete industrial floors," finding it not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark STONCLAD, STONHARD, and STONSHIELD for goods that… [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:23 pm
Fordyce v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 8:37 am
” Tinker v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
This one gets less play than the others – perhaps because of how courts sometimes use “communication” to get around it in non-prescription medical product cases (more on that to come), or sometimes because plaintiffs might use the same testimony to claim medical malpractice.But prescriber failure to read can be a powerful tool. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 11:53 am
Longton move a gun from around his back to his coat pocket, Mr. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 10:01 am
” United States v. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 3:16 pm
Brown v. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 9:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 6:06 am
This was told to us in the 1996 Texas Supreme Court case, Maryland Insurance Company v. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 5:48 am
Related blog posts: Johnson & Johnson to Stop Manufacturing Drug-Coated Heart Stents Federal Diversity Jurisdiction in Breach of Contract Case Stands; Nomanbhoy v. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 6:44 am
Our Coat of Arms, our Constitution, all make reference to God. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 6:56 am
A Colorado court of appeals explained in Coats v DISH Network, LLC that “lawful activity” for purposes of the statute includes both federal and state law. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 10:00 am
The case that brings up “puffery” is Viggiano v. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 3:46 pm
You can reach us at our number or visit any of our offices. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 5:46 am
In T.P. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2013, 8:57 am
Medrick v. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 7:24 am
In this week’s case (Lee v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 10:27 am
Contrast, unfortunately, the Medicaid expansion: Congress did not anticipate the Court’s Spending Clause holding in NFIB v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 8:58 am
“Let us assume that a first priority document discloses a method of coating the inner wall of a pipe and that a second priority document discloses the use of the same method for coating the inner wall of bottles or any other hollow bodies. [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 8:35 am
In Conor v Angiotech [2008] UKHL 49 [noted by the IPKat here] the question was whether it was obvious to use a taxol-coated stent for preventing restenosis. [read post]
