Search for: "D&S, Inc." Results 6241 - 6260 of 25,957
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2019, 5:58 am
Posted by , on Friday, January 25, 2019 Editor's Note: This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 18–24, 2019. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 3:54 am
Two of the Section 2(d) decisions were precedential, involving the marks I'M SMOKING HOT and AMERICAN CONSTELLATION: In re FabFitFun, Inc., 127 USPQ2d 1670 (TTAB 2018) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 4:14 am by Edith Roberts
At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery and Amy Swearer remark Tuesday’s cert grant in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 9:44 pm by Sam Brunson
Apparently, he was the sole shareholder of ASJA Inc. and Rule Tours Inc. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 8:59 am by Eric Goldman
§115(d)(3)(E)(i)]  The database shall include the title of the work, the copyright owner(s) and ownership percentage(s), contact information for the copyright owner (if known), and “to the extent reasonably available,” “the international standard musical work code” for the work, and “identifying information for sound recordings in which the musical work is embodied,” including titles, featured artists, sound recording copyright… [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel notes that the recent decision in New Prime Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:56 am by Eric Goldman
  [B]ecause of Aeolian’s dominance of a now-defunct technology, we have a musical culture in America in which musicians are free to tweak songs they like. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 3:28 pm by Nikki Siesel
This ruling is similar to the precedential decision, In re White Rock Distilleries, Inc.,92 USPQ2d 12982 (TTAB 2009) [precedential], where the TTAB reversed a 2(d) refusal for a vodka infused energy drink. [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 9:10 am by Gregory B. Williams
The Court noted that, although “a plaintiff’s choice of venue is generally provided paramount consideration under Jumara, the Court’s inability to assert personal jurisdiction over one of the defendants undermine[d] that deference here. [read post]