Search for: "In re Marks"
Results 841 - 860
of 30,055
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2010, 4:37 am
Reliance Industries, controlled by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, will buy Infotel Broadband Services for $1 billion, marking the re-entry of India's largest-listed firm into the booming telecoms market. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:13 am
After a seven month hiatus, the folks blogging at Law School Innovation - Doug Berman, Anupam Chander, and Mark Osler - felt the time was right, and they've re-ignited the blog here. [read post]
18 May 2016, 6:23 am
CIVIL – DOMESTIC RELATIONS DA 15-0632, 2016 MT 117N, IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: KENNETH MARK MURPHY, JR., Petitioner and Appellant, v. [read post]
27 May 2020, 7:53 pm
If you’re really concerned about this, dive deeper before marking arguments. ?? [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 2:08 pm
Res 7, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of... [read post]
4 May 2010, 5:53 am
In the end, all they're doing is undermining confidence in the... [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 3:31 pm
If, like me, you're a skeptic, take a look at this speech by Cisco GC Mark Chandler at the Northwestern... [read post]
6 Nov 2006, 6:09 pm
In re 1175856 Ontario Ltd., Serial No. 78442207 (October 26, 2006). [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 4:13 am
Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.July 7, 2020 - 2 PAM: In re Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., Serial No. 87935794 [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark CPLC for various health care services in class 44, in view of the identical mark registered as a certification mark for "perinatal loss care services"].July 9, 2020 - 1 PM: Biogrand Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 8:10 am
Amplify Federal Credit Union , Opposition No. 91228233 [Section 2(d) priority contest involving two applicants seeking to register the mark AMPLIFY, in standard character form, for charitable fundraising services].October 30, 2018 - 10 AM: In re Starbucks Corporation, Serial No. 85792872 [Refusal to register an alleged mark consisting of a green circle placed centrally on the front exterior side of a white cup, for "Coffee, tea, coffee and tea based beverages,… [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 3:32 am
In re P.T. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 3:33 am
Oh, wait, we're talking about clothing here. [read post]
30 Sep 2021, 3:45 am
October 5, 2021 - 1 PM: In re California Exotic Novelties, LLC and Wood Rocket, LLC, Serial No. 88629939 [Refusal to register FUCK ME for "Adult sexual stimulation aids, namely, vibrators" on the ground that the proposed mark is a common phrase that cannot function as a trademark.] [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 4:46 am
We're not dealing with the real world here. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 6:13 pm
" In re G. [read post]
8 May 2012, 6:31 pm
Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 10:19 am
The court explained that because many relators are interested in quick settlements, the government may be bound by res judicata before the Department of Justice is even aware of the suit. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 10:19 am
The court explained that because many relators are interested in quick settlements, the government may be bound by res judicata before the Department of Justice is even aware of the suit. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 2:50 am
In re Viccino's Pizza Restaurants, Inc., Serial No. 77472394 (September 30, 2010) [not precedential].As to the services, Applicant's carry-out restaurants were encompassed by Registrant's recitation of "restaurants. [read post]
6 May 2018, 9:59 pm
Purely Business Method Patent Found Ineligible under Section 101 By Joseph Herndon -- In an appeal from a rejection in initial examination of appellant Mark Eberra's patent application, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("Board") determination that the claims are patent-ineligible under § 101. [read post]
