Search for: "Mark Cover"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 18,206
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2011, 6:31 am
The answer is that this is an elaborate cover-up scheme. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 4:00 am
More than enough to cover Medicaid expansion. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 2:05 pm
SEC Press Release--- If you need help with a securities litigation, arbitration or litigation issue, email Mark Astarita or call 212-509-6544 to speak to a securities lawyer. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 11:57 pm
"As to the PTO's third-party registrations, only two were based on use and none of them cover preparations for the repair of polyolefin surfaces.Finally, the Board noted that the marks, although very similar, are highly suggestive and are not entitled to a broad scope of protection. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:13 am
In particular, the court found that the registration of a mark generally covering a broad category (genus) of uses did not necessarily establish priority over a specific (species) use covered by the broad category. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 3:05 am
[Answer in first comment].In re IBrand Accessories LLC, Serial No. 86185362 (June 29, 2015) [not precedential] [Refusal to register BULLETPROOF SCREEN PROTECTOR for "display screen protectors for providing shade and privacy specially adapted to electronic devices, namely, laptops, cell phones, and personal digital assistants" [SCREEN PROTECTOR disclaimed], in view of the registered mark BULLET-PROOF SHIELDS for "protective sheet for covering laptop computers, MP3… [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 1:26 pm
All of her medical care was covered under her health plan except for two medical bills. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:10 am
(c) The marking of a product, in a manner described in subsection (a), with matter relating to a patent that covered that product but has expired is not a violation of this section. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 9:19 am
CommentThe concept of bad faith is not defined in EU trade mark law. [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 10:20 am
Galileo then applied to the General Court to annul the decision of the Board of Appeal on the sole ground that the Board of Appeal did not take account of the fact that there was a high degree of similarity between the goods and services covered by the earlier marks and the service covered by the mark for which registration was sought, whether on the basis of actual similarity or on the basis that they were complementary.The General Court dismissed… [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 3:13 am
Satanovsky submitted a raft of evidence to show the relatedness of the goods, including Internet web pages and some 40 use-based third-party registrations covering the types of goods at issue. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 1:05 am
It claimed that the Board of Appeal had erred, first, in the comparison of the contested mark with the earlier mark and, secondly, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.Last week, the GC handed down its decision on the matter, confirming the earlier take of the Board of Appeal.The legal frameworkUnder Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009 (now Articles 60 and 8(1)(b) in Regulation 2017/1001 on the EU Trade Mark, EUTMR), read in conjunction with Article… [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 3:13 am
The USPTO refused registration of the mark NABOSO for foot orthotics, yoga mats, and rubber flooring, finding the mark likely to cause confusion with four registered marks (with three different owners) comprising or containing the word BAREFOOT covering the same goods. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 4:21 am
However the registrations covered restaurant or food preparations services, and none related to fruits, vegetables, plants, or flowers. [read post]
15 Jan 2024, 1:30 am
Both trade marks cover classes 18, 25 and 35. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 3:40 am
The meaning of applicant's mark is a chocolate-covered candy, while BOB O BON has no known meaning, but it suggests that the goods are "good. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 3:05 am
However, both the application and cited registration are broad enough to cover more specialized types of restaurants. [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 11:43 am
The Applicant further appealed to the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal, which decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling: (1) Must Article 4(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for registration of a trade mark which designates services and where the application relates to a sign, placed in a particular position, which covers large areas… [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 1:23 am
Following this, the General Court considered whether the sound in the mark in question would be distinctive, and found that it isn't, as the simple two note combination would only "...be perceived by the relevant public only as a mere function of the goods and services covered and not as an indication of their commercial origin". [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 12:51 pm
Vote mark displayed on it. [read post]
