Search for: "IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY "
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2024, 9:00 pm
As Civil Procedure professors, we were intrigued by the Court’s disposition of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 1:54 pm
I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 7:55 am
Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 4:02 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 719, 2009 (Del. 7/11/11). [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 7:18 am
DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION, 939 F. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 5:23 am
Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 844 F. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 5:50 pm
Du Pont de Nemours and Co., No. 08-0625 (Tex. [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]
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]
21 May 2024, 11:45 am
Relying on and analyzing the “likelihood of confusion” factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the TTAB denied ROGUE’s request for cancellation. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 4:32 pm
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 7:35 pm
The most relevant case for this legal analysis is In Re DuPont In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (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]
28 Aug 2018, 3:09 pm
In Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases, the plaintiff must establish the presence of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ trademarks pursuant to the thirteen factors set forth in the case of In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 2:38 pm
Don Blankenship, a coal company executive who was convicted of conspiring to violate safety standards, claims he was defamed when after release he unsuccessfully ran for office. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 1:01 pm
References [6] In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).[7] In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 4:23 am
Raymark Industies, that its previous 1985 decision was binding, even though the Willis case involved employees of E.I. du Pont & Nemours Company, a different employer from the court’s previous case.[2] The legal irony was thick. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 6:14 am
"There were fears when the recession began that these folks would be disproportionately impacted, and it appears to be the case," says Thomas Sager, general counsel of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and a longtime diversity champion. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 8:40 am
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 5:46 am
(IPKat) United States US General Interview with White House ‘IP Czar’, Victoria Espinel (PatLit) When a school boy’s trick meets strangers in a train (or in the Air) – trade secrets and strangers: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v Christopher (IPKat) USPTO invites comments on strategic plan (IP Watch) (USPTO) US Patent Reform Unreasonable patent applicant delay and the USPTO backlog (Patently-O) US Patents June IP Update podcast:… [read post]
