Search for: "Steel v. Steel" Results 1881 - 1900 of 2,998
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
Indeed, while under Article 52(1)(a) CTMR the application date is the seminal moment for the examination invalidity grounds, examiners and Courts are free to consider any material subsequent to the date of application insofar as it enables conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date [see the CJEU’s orders in Alcon v OHIM, in Case C-192/03P, and Torresan v OHIM, in Case C-5/10]. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 6:17 pm
"Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 01, 2008 "American Steel Erectors, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2023, 8:07 am by admin
Examples are certainly helpful to explain and to show judges how real scientists reach causal conclusions. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 11:06 am by Ronald Mann
It starts with a contract to construct steel mills in Alabama, between Outokumpu Stainless USA (the United States subsidiary of a large Finnish stainless-steel producer) and Fives ST Corp (an affiliate of a French engineering group). [read post]
21 May 2008, 7:45 am
  (Note: in addition to the petitions listed below, the Court has also distributed two petitions previously mentioned on our watch list: AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan v. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 2:18 am by gmlevine
WebVision, D2010-1702 (WIPO November 26, 2010) (“there has been a Webvision Corporation or Webvision Inc. operating at various times in the USA”); Future Steel Holdings, Ltd. v. [read post]