Search for: "In Re E.i. Du Pont"
Results 21 - 40
of 82
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
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]
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 Jul 2009, 10:30 pm
Update 7/6/09: On my initial pass through last week's orders, I missed another related case, In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (08-0625), which was decided without oral argument. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 10:30 pm
Update 7/6/09: On my initial pass through last week's orders, I missed another related case, In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (08-0625), which was decided without oral argument. [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]
6 Jul 2012, 7:29 pm
E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1580 (Fed. [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]
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]
1 Apr 2010, 4:30 am
" 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]
23 May 2014, 2:26 pm
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
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]
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]
9 May 2014, 2:27 pm
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
31 Jul 2010, 4:25 am
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. [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]
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]
