Search for: "In re F. E."
Results 6921 - 6940
of 7,242
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2007, 3:14 pm
Box 520232 Salt Lake City, UT 84165-1052 Phone: (801) 363-6320 E-mail: ldau@ldau.org Web: http://www.ldau.org Mental Health Utah Alliance for the Mentally Ill P.O. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 7:22 pm
So Air Transp Southern District of Ohio at ColumbusALAN E. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 2:33 pm
W-L br. at 24-25 ("[e]ach one of these [statutory] findings involves the state fact-finder in the interpretation and application of federal statutes and regulations that are, by congressional directive, subject exclusively to federal oversight"). [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 2:08 pm
Es hat entschieden, dass die Dauer des Führerausweisentzuges nicht aufgespalten werden kann. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 10:28 am
Rule 34(a) does not give the requesting party [i.e., the Plaintiff in this case] the right to conduct the actual search.' In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 2003)[.] [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 7:36 am
Box 1406 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: (803) 737-0391; (800) 436-8190 (V/TTY/Toll Free) Fax: (803) 737-0140 E-mail: rratterree@sces.org Web: http://www.sces.org/es/specgrp.htm South Carolina Speech To Speech Relay Service Phone: (800) 735-7277 (Toll Free) ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY Technology-Related Assistance SC Assistive Technology Project USC, School of Medicine-Center for Disability Resources 8301 Farrow Road Columbia, SC 29208 Phone: (803) 935-5340 Fax: (803) 935-5342 Web:… [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 1:59 pm
Rob La Gatta: f you were to meet a lawyer just starting his or her first blog, what is the single most important bit of advice you’d offer them? [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 4:44 am
" The Board found that the marks have "a very similar commercial impression" and therefore this duPont factor weighed in favor of likelihood of confusion.As to the goods, Examining Attorney Midge F. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 3:41 am
In this rather mundane Section 2(e)(4) case, Judge Seeherman took the opportunity to expand on the thought-provoking comments made in her recent concurring opinion in In re Joint Stock Company "Baik", Serial No. 78521961 (TTABlogged here) regarding the Board's surname test. [read post]
9 Dec 2007, 5:30 am
Travelman, 650 F.2d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 1981), and the new rule of Macias-Valencia will create some horribly unjust cases.For Further Reading: For a very interesting article suggesting much-needed reform of conspiracy law, see Benjamin E. [read post]
8 Dec 2007, 11:00 am
: (IPKat), United StatesIntellectual Property and Personal Injuries Law: (IPBiz),The myth that patent reform will benefit foreigners at the expense of US manufacturers: (Patent Troll Tracker),Useful list of organisations which are not government trade mark offices: (Trademark blog),Patent Advisory Committee tells Bush that problems are surmountable: (IAM), (More from IAM), (Still more from IAM), (e^(ip))Summary judgment date set for New Rules… [read post]
7 Dec 2007, 7:01 am
Box 1325 Fargo, ND 58107 E-mail: fmfeat@yahoo.com Brain Injury Brain Injury Association of North Dakota Open Door Center 209 2nd Avenue S.E. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 10:49 pm
Robison, 505 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:52 pm
" (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887.) [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 12:59 pm
Lesson: Focus on what you're good at, serve your market well and you will succeed. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 7:41 am
Préférant le micro sans-fil au bon vieux micro de podium, il nous a offert une présentation solide sur la confidentialité de l'information en particulier dans le cadre de son transfert et de sa conservation. [read post]
2 Dec 2007, 10:39 pm
" A GE spokeswoman, Cristy F. [read post]
2 Dec 2007, 9:21 pm
Farm Service Agency, 504 F.3d 592, (5th Cir. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 9:05 pm
Illustrative is the CCPA's analysis in In re Howard, 55 C.C.P.A. 1121, 394 F.2d 869, 157 USPQ 615 (CCPA 1968), wherein the court affirmed the Board of Appeals' rejection of the claims for lack of novelty and found it unnecessary to reach the Board's section 101 ground that a method of doing business is "inherently unpatentable. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 1:35 pm
O'Brien (In re O'Brien), 312 F.3d 1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 2002). [read post]
