Search for: "E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co."
Results 61 - 80
of 168
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
21 Jul 2017, 11:25 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985). [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 8:23 am
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]
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]
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]
15 May 2008, 8:54 am
More detail of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [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]
7 Feb 2017, 7:27 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 637 F.3d at 440. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 3:41 pm
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]
17 Aug 2011, 10:10 am
Patent No. 7,000,000 was issued Feb. 14, 2006 to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., entitled “Polysaccharide Fibers. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 12:26 pm
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]
14 Jul 2017, 2:52 pm
The board cited E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 7:36 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 10:28 am
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
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]
3 Oct 2018, 2:26 pm
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]
5 Dec 2019, 11:54 am
See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 803 F. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 12:51 pm
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
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
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]
