Search for: "E.I. Dupont Nemours "
Results 101 - 120
of 215
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
29 May 2011, 9:37 am
E.I. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 9:10 am
There, Kolon is defending against trade secrets claims that a rival company, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, filed in February 2009. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 7:36 am
After considering the case at seven consecutive conferences, the justices finally denied review in E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 9:46 am
Dupont de Nemours and Company, No. 08-1911. [read post]
1 May 2017, 5:46 am
In cases where it is alleged that the Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will look to the factors for likelihood of confusion set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 3:01 am
DuPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE - Senior Paralegal in IP and Commercial Litigation department2. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 1:42 pm
(Solvent) sued two adjoining property owners, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 11:34 am
DuPont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 10:35 am
And Grassley criticized Motley Rice for a controversy in which E.I Dupont De Nemours and Co. paid $12 million to resolve lead-paint litigation, and $2.5 million of it went to a hospital with close ties to Motley Rice. [read post]
1 May 2017, 5:46 am
In cases where it is alleged that the Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will look to the factors for likelihood of confusion set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 1:44 am
DuPont de Nemours and Co. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 3:44 am
DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 7:14 am
Du Pont De Nemours, Louisville Works, October 11, 2018). [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]
7 May 2009, 1:31 am
DuPont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 7:12 am
The basic problem in In re M-I is that the trial judge never considered any countervailing interests that the plaintiff had in protecting the secrets during the court proceeding.It is a little curious that the Court in its Fourteenth Amendment analysis never cited E.I. duPont de Nemours Powder Co. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 5:11 am
DuPont De Nemours, 2014 WL 5048950 (N.J.Super.A.D.) [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 9:44 am
Dupont de Nemours & Co v. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 8:33 am
DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
