Search for: "Lamin v Lamin"
Results 61 - 80
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2017, 10:15 am
& Ors. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 7:24 am
Patent No. 6,401,415 entitled DIRECT LAMINATED FLOOR and owned by Faus Group, Inc. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 7:24 am
Patent No. 6,401,415 entitled DIRECT LAMINATED FLOOR and owned by Faus Group, Inc. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 2:36 am
., Serial No. 77219184 [Refusal to register the mark depicted below, consisted of "the configuration of interlaced woven strips of leather forming a repeating weave pattern used over all or substantially all of the goods," for wallets, purses, and other leather goods, on the grounds of aesthetic and utilitarian functionality, mere ornamentality, and lack of acquired distinctiveness].October 5, 2011 - 2 PM: Companhia de Bebidas das Americas v. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 12:49 pm
In Iris Corp. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 10:59 am
Proactive Environmental Products Int’l, LLC v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 6:54 am
On 30 June 2009, three Judges of the Federal Court handed down their decision in Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 81. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 11:25 am
Paras Laminates (P) Ltd, (1990) 4 SCC 453 at pg. 457, this Court observed as under :- "9. [read post]
24 May 2011, 12:13 am
Tessera v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 7:40 am
Patent No. 6,243,254 entitled DIELECTRIC CERAMIC COMPOSITION AND LAMINATED CERAMIC CAPACITOR USING THE SAME and owned by Murata Mfg. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 7:40 am
Patent No. 6,243,254 entitled DIELECTRIC CERAMIC COMPOSITION AND LAMINATED CERAMIC CAPACITOR USING THE SAME and owned by Murata Mfg. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 11:51 am
Campfield v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 4:20 am
FF Cosmetics FL Inc. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 3:35 am
” Nonetheless, just last year a bitterly divided Court, in a 5-4 vote in Connick v. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 4:45 pm
Background Rhianna Wearmouth worked for West Fraser at its laminated veneer lumber site. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 3:31 pm
In today’s case (Prednichuk v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:00 am
Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc (Class 46) (IPKat) EPO: Should green technology be subject to compulsory licensing? [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 1:51 pm
In both this Term’s case and last, the issue was whether the prosecutors had failed in their constitutional duty, under Brady v. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 4:50 am
Puts Office at odds with CDN v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Loss amount was properly calculated to include dollar amounts that she had not yet withdrawn, and her base offense level was properly increased where the physical act of popping small air bubbles on the laminated face of her fake ID constituted production of a counterfeit access device. [read post]
