Search for: "Du Pont v. Du Pont"
Results 141 - 160
of 568
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2018, 3:22 am
” This eccentric usage can be traced back to the original 1973 Du Pont precedent. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 1:42 pm
In E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:18 am
Thus, the Board determined the first du Pont factor weights in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 3:15 am
Patrón Spirits International AG v. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 2:46 am
Therefore the Board considered this 6th du Pont factor to be neutral.The marks: The Board again observed that when the involved services are identical, as here, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks is necessary to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. [read post]
18 May 2018, 4:03 am
" New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:24 am
Evid. 801(c) and 803; Safer, Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 3:06 am
Three incidents of actual confusion weighed in opposer's favor in the Du Pont analysis. [read post]
7 May 2018, 2:55 am
DreTurning to the fifth du Pont factor, the strength of opposer's mark, the Board found DR. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:30 am
Inc. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 2:59 am
Veleno v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 6:58 am
LP Global, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 11:36 am
I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”). [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 11:36 am
I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”). [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 5:20 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 101 N.J. 161, 501 A.2d 505 (1985), appeal after remand 226 N.J.Super. 572, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), judgment aff'd 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989). [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 5:57 pm
Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 N.J.L. 404, 193 A. 194 (1937), aff'd 119 N.J.L. 427, 197 A. 276 (Err. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 3:49 am
The mark has achieved a "marginal degree of fame," and therefore the 5th du Pont factor was deemed neutral. [read post]
26 Dec 2017, 11:45 am
Cesari S.R.L. v. [read post]
26 Dec 2017, 3:23 am
Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 7:00 am
Du Pont de Nemours, Louisville Works, (August 26, 2016) (DuPont)—where a divided Board held that actions consistent with an established past practice constitute a change, and therefore require the employer to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to implementation, if the past practice was created under a management-rights clause in a CBA that has expired, or if the disputed actions involved employer discretion. [read post]
