Search for: "In re Dominic F." Results 81 - 100 of 652
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2013, 12:16 pm by Bridget Crawford
Black and white diamonds, f*ck segregation. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 2:48 am
And since we're in a little bit of a lull as far as new CAAF cases go, why not air old grievances? [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
"The Board therefore agreed with the PTO that the word MILLER'S is the dominant element in both marks. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 7:19 am by Alex Aldridge
“It’ll be the f**king British Raj Mark 2! [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 7:29 am
 If you haven't done so already, click on over to DOM's blog and read Roy Black's guest post on F. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 2:56 am
In re Confluence Holdings Corp., Serial No. 85643399 (June 19, 2014) [not precedential].The Marks: The Board not surprisingly found the word BOMBER to be the dominant element of applicant's mark, since GEAR is disclaimed and BOMBER appears as the first word in the mark. [read post]
12 Oct 2006, 4:58 am
In re Hotels.com, L.P., Serial No. 76414272 (September 11, 2006) [not citable].Is it a Unitary Mark? [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 10:09 am by Dennis Crouch
Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376 (Fed. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 5:01 am
See In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d. 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (“we agree with the Board that Majestic’s uncorroborated statements of no known instances of actual confusion are of little evidentiary value. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:52 pm by Nikki Siesel
In the case at bar, the term Manhattan is the dominant element of both marks. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:38 am by John L. Welch
" In re Jonathan Drew, Inc. d/b/a Drew Estate, ___ USPQ2d ___, Serial No. 77099522 (TTAB 2011), quoting In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348, 67 USPQ2d 1629, 1631 (Fed. [read post]