Search for: "E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS "
Results 61 - 80
of 212
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2012, 5:12 am
The plan will go into effect as a modification of a permit, which legally requires the E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. to fund and perform the work. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 8:02 pm
Burberry seeks to protect itself from trademark confusion, as expressed in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 1:09 pm
The Department of Energy indemnified the government contractors, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. and General Electric Co., that ran the plant, and has spent about $60 million in legal bills defending them. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 12:57 pm
” The firm represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., which won a $919.9 million judgment in September against Kolon Industries. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 4:22 pm
According to the Order, non-party E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) filed a motion to quash a subpoena ad testificandum issued on an application from Respondents SKC, Inc. and SKC Kolon PI, Inc. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 6:40 am
Gevo filed counterclaims against Butamax and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for infringement of two of its patents and has added an additional four patent infringement lawsuits against Butamax and DuPont. ****************************** See post Brett Lund, Gevo EVP & General Counsel Awarded "Best Corporate Counsel" Lund Receives Award at 2nd Annual Denver Business Journal's Award Program [read post]
23 May 2017, 10:25 pm
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company obtained information suggesting that Mr. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 11:39 pm
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.), No. 07-2105 (4th Cir. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 1:43 am
The U.S. judgment that is frequently brought to support the proposition that a trade secret duty may be created in such a situation is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1970). [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 11:30 am
Du Pont De Nemours & Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (S.D.W.V. [read post]
14 Mar 2022, 2:46 pm
Cir. 1997)); see also E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2021, 3:36 am
E,I, du Pont de Nemours & Company, 226 N.J.Super. 572, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), judgment aff'd 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989). 9.22 Gelman, Jon L, Workers’ Compensation Law, 38 NJPRAC 9.22 (Thomson-Reuters 2021). [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 3:10 pm
Seth Bryant, counted E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, among others, as a client. [read post]
1 May 2017, 5:46 am
In cases where it is alleged that the Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will look to the factors for likelihood of confusion set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 1:42 pm
(Solvent) sued two adjoining property owners, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 3:00 pm
Last year, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred one lawyer and suspended another for two years for taking a $6.4 million fee from the defense to file no more cases against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 1:01 pm
Valid Exercise of Rights Under License Agreement - Licensees may be in violation of the license agreement if they enter into agreements with third parties that effectively equal a sublicense - Courts will look at the nature of the relationship between the parties to determine whether a sublicense exists (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. [read post]
15 May 2008, 8:54 am
More detail of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2008, 7:19 am
KEVLAR® is a registered trademark of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [read post]
13 May 2011, 3:10 am
(NDCA): With respect to the PTO Initial Office Actions and reexamination orders, it is well established that while statements made by the patentee during reexamination proceedings may be probative as to questions of claim construction, see E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
