Search for: "In Re Application of Smith"
Results 121 - 140
of 2,109
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2013, 6:47 am
It is intended to assist examiners in applying the provisions to particular applications in need of immediate examination, such as prioritized applications. [read post]
17 May 2012, 2:00 am
The Court considered Re Jeffery Estate, [1990] O.J. [read post]
30 May 2023, 12:57 pm
EFF’s Work Is Making a Difference The Smith court’s application of Riley’s balancing test is nearly identical to the arguments we’ve made time and time again. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 8:57 pm
Category: 103 By: Eric Paul Smith, Contributor TitleIn re Haase, No. 2012-1690 (Fed. [read post]
5 May 2020, 5:29 am
Cir. 2015); see also In re Electrolyte Labs. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 6:17 am
Re-united in 2009. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 6:35 am
Smith says they're not asking for much, only what they deserve. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 11:55 pm
Smith believes. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 10:03 am
Nationally, cases of felons seeking admission or re-admission to the bar are common. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 5:18 am
Tex. 2005) (Smith, M.J.); In re Application of U.S., 402 F. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 11:28 am
Smith Int’l, 209 USPQ at 1043. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 6:59 pm
Whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable under Smith, and if so, whether this Court should overrule Smith. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 3:42 am
Supreme Court Rainy Sky SA & Orsd v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 (2 November 2011) Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (2 November 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Smith & Anor v Jafton Properties Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1251 (02 November 2011) Shiva Ltd v Transport for London [2011] EWCA Civ 1189 (02 November 2011) High Court (Chancery Division) Business Dream Ltd, Re Insolvency Act 1986 [2011] EWHC 2860 (Ch) (02 November 2011) High… [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 3:04 am
In re Sherrilyn Kenyon, Serial No. 85396538 (July 9, 2014) [not precedential].The fact that the involved marks are identical weighed heavily against applicant in the Section 2(d) analysis. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 4:30 am
We’re not joking. [read post]
20 May 2016, 1:41 pm
Smith). [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 6:20 pm
Well, when we look at the applicable rule, Craig, it's the Rule of Professional Conduct that talks about this. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 6:02 am
Lamar Smith et al. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 5:46 am
(quoting Smith Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 7:30 am
Like what you're reading? [read post]
