Search for: "AS PTO, LLC" Results 801 - 820 of 1,048
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2010, 3:05 am by John L. Welch
The TTAB recently suggested the same in DaimlerChrysler Corporation and Chrysler, LLC v. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 4:26 am
Lunney, Jr.Other:The TTAB Comes to Boston: Friday, October 26, 2007 Omission of Marks in August 28th Printed TM Official Gazette Does Not Affect Opposition Period TTAB Posts September 2007 Hearing Schedule Marty Schwimmer on Online Branding IssuesSeattle Trademark Lawyer Reports on USPTO Anti-Counterfeiting Forum Rhode Island Federal Court Finds "MEMORY" to be Generic for a Card Game TTAB Posts August 2007 Hearing ScheduleThe Trademark Blog Reports on Suit to Oust PTO Deputy… [read post]
Knowing employee burnout is high and rising, you could offer additional paid time off (PTO) or the ability to roll PTO over to the following year. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 11:15 pm
" Because Vertex did not seek to register the mark based on acquired distinctiveness, the Board deemed the mark unregistrable for that reason alone, and it also affirmed the PTO's two refusals to register on the grounds that Vertex's sound mark is functional under Section 2(e)(5) and fails to function as a trademark for the goods (Sections 1, 2, and 45). [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 10:21 am by Dennis Crouch
  The PTO Director, has waived her right to respond through DOJ counsel. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 3:12 am by John L. Welch
In re Guitar Straps Online, LLC, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1745 (TTAB 2012) [precedential].Proposed amendment: The Board noted that if the proposed amendment adding a question mark were permitted, the amended drawing would comport with the specimens of use, and the second refusal would be moot. [read post]
16 May 2011, 9:07 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
How well grounded such beliefs are is also unclear, but the risks may have been reduced in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
13 May 2015, 6:50 am by Dennis Crouch
If Congress wants to elucidate or maintain the Supreme Court’s reintroduction of discretion, it should not wait for litigation. = = = = = [1] Octane Fitness, LLC v. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 11:55 am
My strong suspicion is the panel will uphold the PTO’s decision to register SPAM ARREST and deny Hormel’s petition due to the widespread generic use of the term. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 4:56 am by Marie Louise
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: Request for sales and customer information for accused product creates actual controversy sufficient to support declaratory relief claim: Triteq Lock & Security, LLC v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 5:15 pm
The losses Edgar sold were purportedly non-passive partnership losses generated by Creative Financial Solutions, LLC and Why Not Entertainment, LLC, both of which Edgar managed and controlled. [read post]
9 May 2018, 2:58 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Even when ION wasjoined, the PTO gave ION only spectator status. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 1:44 am
  * Bayer feels the pain: branded Naproxen can't invoke the territoriality principleKatfriend Marty Schwimmer reports on Belmora LLC v Bayer Consumer Care AG and Bayer Healthcare LLC, 1:14-cv-00847-GBL (EDVA Feb. 6, 2015), a recent US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruling that deals with Article 6bis of the Paris Convention in the US as it applies to Bayer’s trade mark ‘FLANAX’. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 7:18 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: US: Kappos confirmation hearing set for 29 July (IP Watchdog) (IAM) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Inventive Step) US: More delays in Patent Reform Act likely as anti-lobby finds a powerful friend – Prof Scott Shane’s study indicates post-grant review could increase PTO pendency by 25% (IAM) (Peter Zura's 271… [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 10:06 am by Dennis Crouch
Let me note here, this decision is not new, but repeats prior Federal Circuit decisions, including Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. [read post]