Search for: "E.I. Du Pont De Nemours "
Results 81 - 100
of 211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2008, 3:00 pm
Last year, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred one lawyer and suspended another for two years for taking a $6.4 million fee from the defense to file no more cases against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 7:00 am
Du Pont de Nemours, Louisville Works, (August 26, 2016) (DuPont)—where a divided Board held that actions consistent with an established past practice constitute a change, and therefore require the employer to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to implementation, if the past practice was created under a management-rights clause in a CBA that has expired, or if the disputed actions involved employer discretion. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 3:41 pm
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 101 N.J. 161, 501 A.2d 505 (1985), appeal after remand 226 N.J.Super. 572, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), certif. granted 113 N.J. 377, 550 A.2d 480 (1988). [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 5:57 pm
Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 N.J.L. 404, 193 A. 194 (1937), aff'd 119 N.J.L. 427, 197 A. 276 (Err. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 9:38 pm
Procedural HistoryThe President and Fellows of Harvard College and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (collectively, Harvard) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) finding that U.S. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 7:27 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 637 F.3d at 440. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 5:20 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 101 N.J. 161, 501 A.2d 505 (1985), appeal after remand 226 N.J.Super. 572, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), judgment aff'd 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989). [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 7:41 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161, 174, 501 A.2d 505 (1985) ). [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 8:23 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985) as narrowing the circumstances when the intentional wrong exemption applies in recognition that reckless or negligent conduct often reflects a "deliberate" business decision by employers to promote speed and efficiency at the expense of workplace safety. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 10:28 am
To establish a Section 2(d) case for likelihood of confusion, the Board undertakes the 13-part test found in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 1:27 pm
The analysis of whether a likelihood of confusion exists has been enunciated in the 13 part test found in the case seminal case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:10 am
Patent No. 7,000,000 was issued Feb. 14, 2006 to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., entitled “Polysaccharide Fibers. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 2:26 pm
To do so, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board looks to a 13-part test set forth in the seminal case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 12:26 pm
The government indemnified the contractors, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. and General Electric Co., and is on the hook for their legal fees (which now total about $60 million), and damages. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 11:54 am
See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 803 F. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 7:40 pm
In the end, when applying the analysis set forth in the controlling precedent of In re E.I. du pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), the factors weighed in favor of the Applicant. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 12:51 pm
In doing so, the Board relies of the factors set forth in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 3:08 pm
A likelihood of confusion analysis will consider all relevant facts in evidence and the factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1976). [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:52 pm
The board cited E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 7:36 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. [read post]