Search for: "In Re E.i. Du Pont"
Results 1 - 20
of 82
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm
Joiner had can cause small-cell lung cancer.[13] Perhaps the most egregious lapses in scholarship occur when Ranges, a newly minted scientist, and her co-author, a full professor of law, write: “For example, Bendectin, an antinausea medication prescribed to pregnant women, caused a slew of birth defects (hence its nickname ‘The Second Thalidomide’).49”[14] I had to re-read this sentence many times to make sure I was not hallucinating. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
In In re Solera Holdings, Inc. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
” The court finally denied review on Nov. 20 in six-time relist E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2023, 6:53 am
(relisted after the Sept. 26, Oct. 6, Oct. 13, Oct. 27 and Nov. 3 conferences) E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 7:12 am
(relisted after the Sept. 26, Oct. 6 and Oct. 13 conferences) E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am
ShareThe Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 2:38 pm
Which is not to say they’re unimportant – just a lot less captivating than the brain candy that came before. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 2:18 pm
One to watch is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2023, 3:13 pm
A list of this week’s featured petitions is below: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 6:14 am
Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 90 F.Supp.3d 746 (S.D. [read post]
19 Mar 2022, 2:09 pm
Risk assessments would seemingly be about assessing risks, but they are not. [read post]
14 Mar 2022, 2:46 pm
” E.I. du Pont, 904 F.3d at 1008. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 4:15 am
Under U.S. trademark law and court precedent, determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion involves weighing a number of factors (13 factors to be exact), known as the “Dupont factors,” set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 4:15 am
Under U.S. trademark law and court precedent, determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion involves weighing a number of factors (13 factors to be exact), known as the “Dupont factors,” set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 7:10 pm
Some notes on vexing issue, which fortunately has never serious issue for me. [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]
23 Jul 2020, 4:00 am
The rapid emergence of COVID-19 creates new challenges for the nation’s patchwork of state run workplace benefit delivery systems. [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 Dec 2019, 7:18 am
See, IN RE: E.I. [read post]
