Search for: "In re F. E."
Results 7201 - 7220
of 7,242
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2006, 10:08 am
Unless your plans include the words "Diddy" and "yacht," they're not as fabulous as this fête: Some explanation is in order. [read post]
20 Dec 2006, 7:12 pm
As to the second, although the goods are the same, the marks differ.The Board concluded that the Applicant had failed to rebut the PTO's "strong showing" of genericness.For the sake of completeness, the Board also considered the alternative mere descriptiveness refusal under Section 2(e)(1) and the PTO's rejection of Applicant's Section 2(f) evidence. [read post]
19 Dec 2006, 10:11 pm
Depuis le 1er décembre 2006, date d'entrée en vigueur des nouvelles règles de procédures civiles fédérales américaines qui ont été amendées afin d'inclure des règles liées à la preuve électronique (e-discovery), nombre d'entreprises ont présentées des… [read post]
16 Dec 2006, 3:52 am
"Plus, the court noted a number of other factors in Agilent's favor: (a) the FBI assured Agilent that Moore was not a threat, that they didn't plan an arrest, and that Agilent need not be concerned about him; (b) Agilent's early internal investigation did not disclose that Moore had used its computer system to send any threatening e-mails or postings; (c) when Agilent reprimanded Moore, he did not admit to using its computer system to make any threatening… [read post]
15 Dec 2006, 7:08 pm
Patty FROM: Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director TO: All F---king Employees DATE: November 15, 2006 RE: the F---king Holiday Party Vegetarian pricks - I've had it with you people!!! [read post]
15 Dec 2006, 1:05 pm
And for the first time ever, Anise is giving away up to two brand new Dell laptops, f-r-e-e. [read post]
15 Dec 2006, 4:19 am
Vistos a la luz de los valores humanos más básicos, los "festejos" que solemos ejecutar deben ser erradicados: son primitivos, ofensivos e insultan a la inteligencia (y después nos reÃmos sobradoramente de los programas de Tinelli: no tenemos derecho).Yo, al menos, proclamo mi derecho "iluminista" ("amargo", dirán algunos) de no ser obligado espectador de este espectáculo… [read post]
13 Dec 2006, 4:09 pm
To support that assumption we must hold that a prisoner of our military authorities is constitutionally entitled to the writ, even though he (a) is an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; © was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f)… [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 8:30 am
For example, suppose that a law school has interviewed six candidates (A, B, C, D, E, and F) for two open spots (spot 1 and spot 2). [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 2:21 pm
" [Red Orbit] * It's just law school, not re-education camp. [read post]
5 Dec 2006, 3:02 pm
But that barely scratches the surface, according to attorney John F. [read post]
4 Dec 2006, 1:50 pm
La démocratie est à ce prix, et la presse, qu'elle soit écrite ou parlée, a un rôle important à jouer en la matière. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 9:25 am
" The Advocate General has advised the court to rule as follows: «1) La référence faite dans un message publicitaire à un type de produit ne répond pas, en soi, à l'exigence d'identification inscrite à l'article 2, point 2 bis, de la directive 84/450/CEE du Conseil, du 10 septembre 1984, en matière de publicité trompeuse et de publicité… [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 4:11 pm
In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (C.C.P.A. 1962). [read post]
22 Nov 2006, 3:45 am
(e) Are the criteria by which a competitive relationship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) can be established identical to the criteria for verifying whether the comparison satisfies the condition referred to in paragraph (b) of Article 3a? [read post]
17 Nov 2006, 6:44 am
Faisons payer ceux-ci… Brillante idée! [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 7:34 am
Cette loi est modifiée par l'insertion, après l'article 11, du suivant : « 11.1. [read post]
9 Nov 2006, 7:09 am
--BillWilliam F. [read post]
9 Nov 2006, 5:52 am
The plain text of Rule 59(e) does not speak expressly to that question. [read post]
6 Nov 2006, 9:27 am
Cleland, 697 F. [read post]
