Search for: "E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS " Results 81 - 100 of 212
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 May 2017, 5:46 am by James Hastings
   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]
18 Dec 2017, 7:00 am by Joy Waltemath
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]
26 Feb 2018, 5:20 am by Jon Gelman
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]
10 Aug 2020, 8:23 am by Jon L. Gelman
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985) as narrowing the circumstances when the intentional wrong exemption applies in recognition that reckless or negligent conduct often reflects a "deliberate" business decision by employers to promote speed and efficiency at the expense of workplace safety. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 5:57 pm by Jon Gelman
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]
20 Mar 2015, 9:38 pm
    Procedural HistoryThe President and Fellows of Harvard College and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (collectively, Harvard) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) finding that U.S. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 3:41 pm by Jon L. Gelman
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), certif. granted 113 N.J. 377, 550 A.2d 480 (1988). [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 10:28 am by James Hastings
  To establish a Section 2(d) case for likelihood of confusion, the Board undertakes the 13-part test found in the case In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 1:27 pm by James Hastings
  The analysis of whether a likelihood of confusion exists has been enunciated in the 13 part test found in the case seminal case  In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:10 am by Matt Osenga
Patent No. 7,000,000 was issued Feb. 14, 2006 to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., entitled “Polysaccharide Fibers. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 2:26 pm by James Hastings
  To do so, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board looks to a 13-part test set forth in the seminal case  In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont Factors”). [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 12:26 pm by Jenna Greene
The government indemnified the contractors, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. and General Electric Co., and is on the hook for their legal fees (which now total about $60 million), and damages. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 12:51 pm by James Hastings
  In doing so, the Board relies of the factors set forth in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 3:08 pm by Nikki Siesel
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]
4 Apr 2014, 7:40 pm by Nikki Siesel
In the end, when applying the analysis set forth in the controlling precedent of In re E.I. du pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), the factors weighed in favor of the Applicant. [read post]