Search for: "BANK OF AMERICA V US" Results 621 - 640 of 1,822
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2010, 4:08 pm
(IP Factor) Bar Ilan University holds premature ‘After Re Bilski’ conference (IP Factor)   Latin America Madrid protocol in Latin America: a nightmare or a dream? [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 6:37 am by Beth Graham
    On April 27, 2007, an arbitration award was issued by the NAF in favor of MBNA America Bank. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:43 am by John Elwood
– it’s all a distraction from America’s fastest-growing spectator sport, Relist Watch. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
  Defendants had no in-state offices, real estate, were not registered to do business, had no address, phone numbers, bank accounts, or employees.Google Inc. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 6:04 pm by John Elwood
Serial time-wasters will recall that, before skipping town in June, the Justices gave us an unusual final OT2012 relist:  Octane Fitness v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 3:14 am
., Serial No. 77199918 [Refusal to register CHI for "Investment services, namely, providing futures, options contracts related to hurricanes for trading on an exchange" on the ground that applicant's specimen of use fails to show trademark use].March 4, 2016 - 11:20 AM [University of Utah - S.J. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 5:22 am by Joe Consumer
  I'm sure they're just kicking themselves that yesterday's jury verdict against Bank of America came too late for inclusion in their report. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 8:21 pm by James Yang
”  For example, a patent for a novel light bulb that is found to work well in a bank vault could be up for Covered Business Method Review because the bulb was used in the operation of a bank. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 8:21 pm by James Yang
”  For example, a patent for a novel light bulb that is found to work well in a bank vault could be up for Covered Business Method Review because the bulb was used in the operation of a bank. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 5:00 am by Amy Howe
Hana Bank, the Court ruled that the jury, rather than a court, determines whether use of an older trademark may be tacked to a newer one. [read post]