Search for: "In Re E.i. Du Pont"
Results 1 - 20
of 60
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
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]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
Texas Supreme Court to hear oral argument on Tuesday, October 10, 2017 in client's fee fight with his former attorney following conclusion of drawn-out fight over inheritance money. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:52 pm
The board cited 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]
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]
25 Oct 2016, 6:00 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. stemmed from a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) that began in 2001. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 6:00 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. stemmed from a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) that began in 2001. [read post]
31 May 2016, 6:20 am
The test used in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) evaluates not whether the trademarks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether as a whole their commercial impressions are so similar that confusion is likely. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
That the legislature chose to treat prescription drugs and prescription medical products in the same fashion is also a strong indication of what Texas law is.Since we’re dealing with the common law, we should point out that, with respect to design defects, [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]
22 Oct 2015, 3:38 pm
The Board evaluated whether there was a likelihood of confusion by looking at the thirteen factors identified in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). [read post]
