Search for: "In Re Miner" Results 161 - 180 of 1,442
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2023, 3:40 am
In re THX Ltd., Serial No. 90272320 (February 21, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jonathan Hudis). [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 4:34 am
In re Plant Therapy, LLC, Serial No. 88722907 (March 12, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 2:49 am
[Answer will be found in first comment].In re Folino Estate, LLC, Serial No. 86356824 (August 19, 2016) [not precedential]. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 6:01 am
In re Fusion 360, Inc., Application Serial No. 88131491 (June 24, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cristopher Larkin). [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 2:51 am
Greenbaum) [Section 2(d) refusal of LEAF BY OSCAR in view of the registered mark OSCAR, both for cigars].In re Q’Sai Co., Ltd., Serial No. 79157321 (November 15, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lorelei Ritchie) [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark Q’SAI for fruit juice, concentrates for making fruit juice, vegetable juices, and food products, in view of the registered mark SAI for "soft drinks, namely, noncarbonated soft drinks; beauty beverages, namely, energy… [read post]
23 May 2014, 8:37 am
If drilling isn't possible, a mineral owner will not be able to be receive royalties for their mineral assets. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 6:36 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here are the materials in In re Gold Kind Mine Release in San Juan, County on August 5, 2015 (D.N.M.): 1 Transfer Order 8 Amended Complaint 41 Harrison Western Construction MTD 42 Kinross Gold MTD 44 EPA MTD 46 Weston Solutions MTD 52 Gold King Mines MTD 55 Salem Minerals MTD 58 Navajo Response to 46 59 Utah Response to 41 61 Navajo Nation Response to 44 67 Navajo Nation Response to 42 and 52 74 Reply in Support of 42 76 Reply in Support of 44 77 Reply in Support of 41 81 Reply in… [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 8:13 am
If we're going to keep loose regulations, corporations have to make it a priority to ensure workers' and consumers' health and safety to the extent reasonably possible. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 12:36 am
   The company's fine too, and we're happy to accept all invitations. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 8:51 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
Section 14(1) of the 1962 Act states:“(1) The Central Government may, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, by order prohibit except under a licence granted by it—(i) the working of any mine or minerals specified in the order, being a mine or minerals from which in the opinion of the Central Government any of the prescribed substances can be obtained;(ii) the acquisition, production, possession, use, disposal, export or import—(a) of any of the… [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 6:56 am by John McFarland
They do occasionally “re-visit” wells that have been on the Orphan Well list for a long period of time and may re-test some of them to determine if their threat level has changed. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 3:04 am by John L. Welch
In this "difficult case," the Board reversed a Section 2(a) disparagement refusal of the mark CHINA FREE & Design for vitamins and mineral supplements [the words CHINA FREE disclaimed]. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 6:15 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
From within In re Beineke, a case about 35 U.S.C. [read post]
20 May 2016, 5:30 am by Kori Shafer-Stack
“The program will also re-direct OSHA’s resources and increase the probability of inspections at establishments in high-hazard industries with more than 10 employees and those that have not had a comprehensive inspection since 2011. [read post]
18 May 2010, 5:55 pm by Joe Consumer
Must have missed them at the last Minerals Management Service paintball party. [read post]