Search for: "WAL-MART INC" Results 601 - 620 of 2,638
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2016, 2:55 pm by Jennifer Parent
The Supreme Court explained that its holding was consistent with its 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 9:10 am by Greg Mersol
The Court emphasized that it was not altering the holding in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 3:02 am
In re National Presto Industries, Inc., Serial No. 85883551 (April 19, 2016) [not precedential].The mark comprises the curved handles of the skillet, not the metal base or the glass lid or the knob (which are shown all in dashed lines).Of course, under Wal-Mart, product configurations cannot be inherently distinctive, so Presto resorted to Section 2(f), relying on its use of the "mark" since 2005, sales of more than $65 million, more that $5million in advertising… [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 3:04 am
"Cost and Ease  of Manufacture:The fourth Morton-Norwich factor (lesser cost or ease of manufacture) was neutral.Taking the evidence as a whole, the Board found the applied-for design to be functional, and so it affirmed the Section 2(e)(5) refusal.Acquired Distinctiveness: Turning to the alternative refusal, the Board pointed out that under Wal-Mart, a product configuration cannot be inherently distinctive for purposes of trademark registration. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 10:11 am by John Elwood
  The Court did not swear at all by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 9:49 am by Joe Consumer
Yesterday, just two weeks later, the Supreme Court, [R]ejected two corporate challenges in class action cases, refusing to hear bids by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co to throw out large judgments against them. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 10:22 am by John Elwood
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 4:04 pm by Thomas Kaufman and Melissa Smith
  Justice Kennedy further explained that this ability for individuals to rely on the statistical evidence in their individual cases distinguished this case from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]