Search for: "IN RE JOHN B."
Results 801 - 820
of 3,344
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2020, 4:23 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 4:25 am
In re Fetal Life, LLC, Serial No. 87938891 (March 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 4:21 am
In re Innova Agri Bio Park Limited, Serial No. 88489477 (July 7, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. [read post]
19 Jun 2024, 3:34 am
In re Time USA, LLC, Serial No. 90493176 (June 17, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 4:04 am
" In re Human Data Labs, Inc., Serial No. 88526515 (December 15, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 3:46 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 2:57 am
In re DEQ Systèmes Corp., Serial No. 85315739 (June 4, 2014) [not precedential].In order to be eligible for a claim of acquired distinctiveness, a part or element of a mark must create a distinct commercial impression apart from the other elements of the mark. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 4:29 am
In re Imaginif, Inc., Serial No. 86803751 (November 21, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 5:32 am
In re Kosmos Energy Ltd. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 4:01 am
Somewhere there's a pun here about being stubborn as an ox, but it's not worth finding.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 5:35 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 3:26 am
The Examining Attorney should have asked for more information, under Rule 2.61(b), according to Judge Bucher. [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 6:15 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 3:10 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 6:23 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 3:40 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 3:49 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 5:16 am
In re Brio AB, Serial No. 90091387 (November 4, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 3:02 am
Again, there was no evidence of the extent to which the public perceives CHURRASCOS as indicating applicant as the source of the services.And so the Board concluded that applicant had failed to prove acquired distinctiveness.Read comments and post your comment here.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
28 Jan 2021, 3:19 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]