Search for: "General Products Corp" Results 1561 - 1580 of 6,602
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2021, 3:49 am
Survives Section 2(d) Opposition Challenge to APPLE MUSIC by Tacking On Prior Use of APPLE by Apple Corps Fourth Circuit Affirms E.D.Va.: VAGISAN Confusable With VAGISIL for Feminine Hygiene Products TTABlog Test: Is CHROMAFUSION for Plastic Sleeves for Trading Cards Confusable WIth CHROME for Trading Cards? [read post]
14 Dec 2018, 2:41 pm by Nikki Siesel
It was held that the public’s understanding of the term “Thins” was cracker products and other food products having a physically thin cross section. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 2:17 pm by Kenneth J. Vanko
She signed a two-year customer non-compete clause, barring her from soliciting sales of competing products relating to accounts she serviced at Drummond.Drummond had to admit a breach - despite her new employer's admonition against violating the non-compete contract, she sold chemical products to 12 of her 26 former Drummond accounts. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 4:00 am
  Matter of Dohring (CVC Products, Inc.), 142 Misc 2d 429, 537 NYS2d 767 (Monroe [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 7:17 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Transportation Systems Divisionof General Electric Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 1209-10 (Fed. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm by Bexis
  The issue was product identification – specifically whether the drug that the decedent took was branded (unpreempted) or generic (preempted). [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
Volkswagon-based transfer mandamus order in In re TS Tech USA (Inventive Step) (Hal Wegner) (EDTexweblog.com) (EDTexweblog.com) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Patently-O) (Law360) (Patent Prospector) ECJ decides Obelix too famous to be confused with MOBILIX mobile phone service: Les Éditions Albert René Sàrl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Orange A/S (Class 46) (IPKat)   Global Global – General Moral rights famous… [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:13 pm by Jason Rantanen
Prometheus framework to all types of inventions: [T]he following instructions differ from prior USPTO guidance in two ways: 1) Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all types of judicial exceptions, whereas prior USPTO guidance applied a different analysis to claims with abstract ideas (Bilski guidance in MPEP 2106(1I)(B)) than to claims with laws of nature (Mayo guidance in MPEP 2106.01). 2) Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis… [read post]