Search for: "In Re E.i. Du Pont" Results 21 - 40 of 60
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
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]
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 Jan 2020, 4:32 pm by Nikki Siesel
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 11:26 pm
§ 312(a)(1), with the "substantial question of validity" standard by which a defendant may prevent a patentee from demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, see, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 3:38 pm by Nikki Siesel
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]
15 Feb 2015, 9:13 pm
To the extent that our predecessor court inserted such a requirement into § 102(g) in In re Clemens, we discontinued that requirement as dictum in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 2:26 pm by Nikki Siesel
The Board conducted the likelihood of confusion analysis according to the thirteen factors set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 3:09 pm by James Hastings
   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]
1 Apr 2010, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
Mars, for its part, appealed the verdict, arguing the trial court erred by qualifying Beauregarde as an expert under E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 8:57 am by Tiffany Blofield
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]
8 Aug 2020, 4:23 am by Schachtman
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]
7 Aug 2015, 11:30 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 96, 98 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 1:01 pm by dbllawyers
  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]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 851 F. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 8:40 am by Lindsey A. Zahn
 In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]