Search for: "M. B.1."
Results 1221 - 1240
of 13,692
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2010, 4:00 pm
By: Scott M. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 2:53 pm
ndan 3 aydan 1 seneye kadar hafif hapis cezas? [read post]
27 Jun 2024, 4:12 am
However, in this decision, the CJEU commented for the first time on the requirement of distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to sound marks. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 5:01 am
Now, I turn to more details on one specific kind of slippery slope mechanism—cost-lowering slippery slopes.] [1.] [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 2:21 am
By Faraz Siddiqui & Alan M. [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 1:40 pm
The First Board of Appeal recently handed down an interesting decision concerning the opposition to the registration of a European Union word mark designating, among other things, pharmaceutical and baby products, grounded on Article 8(1)(b) of the EUMR. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 10:29 am
However, offlabel use of rituximab for MS occurs in clinical practice in several countries.Rituximab targets CD20 expressed on pre-B and mature B cells, depleting these cells in the circulation and CNS [Naismith et al. 2010]. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 12:55 pm
(1) "Put it in your face and melts in your mouth like an M&M. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:41 am
B. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 3:16 am
Landis & Loria B. [read post]
15 May 2017, 4:04 am
Méndez Colberg, M.B.A., J.D (Socia del Bufete Emmanuelli, C.S.P.) [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 8:18 am
The new fees are as follows: $140 for applications that are not petition based, including B-1/B-2 tourist and business visitor visas, border crossing cards, and F, M and J student and exchange visitor visas; $150 for petition-based visas, including H, L, O, P, Q and R work-authorized visas; $350 for K fiancé(e) visas; and $390 for E treaty trader/investor visas. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 9:33 pm
" Contents include:Peter B. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 5:56 am
Der Hauptantrag der Beschwerdeführerin ist unbegründet, da der Gegenstand des erteilten Anspruchs 1 nicht neu gegenüber D3 ist (Artikel 54 (1) und (2) EPÜ 1973).[...]2.3 Die Kammer findet also, dass alle Merkmale des erteilten Anspruchs 1 aus D3 bekannt sind, so dass sein Gegenstand nicht neu im Sinne von Artikel 54 (1) und (2) EPÜ 1973 ist. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 3:22 am
Last week the 8th District affirmed, by a 2-1 vote. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 9:58 am
Representative claim 1 of the ‘751 patent recites: 1. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am
§§ 115(a)(1)(B) and (b)(4). [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am
§§ 115(a)(1)(B) and (b)(4). [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am
§§ 115(a)(1)(B) and (b)(4). [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 10:02 pm
Wheeler, 66 M.J. 590 (N-M. [read post]
