Search for: "E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS "
Results 61 - 80
of 212
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2017, 12:39 pm
Cir. 2004), the specification may be used to interpret what the patent holder meant by a word or phrase in the claim,E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 11:25 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985). [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:52 pm
The board cited E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 8:27 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011), while the Ninth and Second Circuits had allowed such tactics. [read post]
23 May 2017, 10:25 pm
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company obtained information suggesting that Mr. [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]
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]
30 Mar 2017, 8:57 am
In determining whether there was a likelihood of confusion, the Board, as usual, applied the factors identified in the In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am
”) Anticipation/Obviousness: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 7:27 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 637 F.3d at 440. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 7:29 am
Du Pont de Nemours, Louisville Works, August 26, 2016). [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 2:40 am
In addition, MacDermid’s Digital CST printing plates did not infringe another DuPont patent (E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 5:01 am
The plaintiff alleged that DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.), which sells products including Teflon, Stainmaster carpet, and Gore-tex, continuously dumped carcinogenic waste into the Ohio River, and the company tried to conceal the dangers of C-8. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 5:01 am
The plaintiff alleged that DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.), which sells products including Teflon, Stainmaster carpet, and Gore-tex, continuously dumped carcinogenic waste into the Ohio River, and the company tried to conceal the dangers of C-8. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog. [read post]
4 May 2016, 12:00 am
Smith, 261 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1958) and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2016, 10:13 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577 (Fed. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 3:08 pm
A likelihood of confusion analysis will consider all relevant facts in evidence and the factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1976). [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 10:16 am
Du Pont De Nemours &Co. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 10:16 am
Du Pont De Nemours &Co. [read post]
