Search for: "In Re Office Products of America, Inc."
Results 261 - 280
of 564
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2010, 4:36 pm
United States (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Property, intangible) US Trade Marks – Decisions Precedential No. 7: TTAB deems internet printouts admissible via notice of reliance: Safer, Inc v OMS Investments, Inc (TTABlog) TTAB vacates 2008 fraud ruling in Herbaceuticals, Inc v Xel Pharmaceuticals, Inc (TTABlog) TTAB affirms 2(d) refusal of CARMINE’S design for restaurant services in view of two other CARMINE’S designs: In re… [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 2:06 pm
In their 2011 Annual Report, AeroVironment, Inc. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 12:51 pm
We're calling on them to do it right. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:16 pm
Lawyers make meaning, indeed, but they do so like Croesus making meaning of the oracle at Delphi, and recognizing that meaning may re-make the maker. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:31 am
RPS Products, Inc. [read post]
4 May 2011, 10:15 am
Offices and businesses that produce intangible products, or services. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 12:04 pm
This is a powerful protection, given that descriptive terms lacking secondary meaning are otherwise free for all competitors to use, and that competitors are likely to have good reasons to do so—after all, the symbol describes relevant features of the product or service. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 4:11 pm
Jiffy Lube Chick-fil-A Family Dollar Jimmy Johns Chili’s Firestone Auto Care Kelly Moore Paints Chipotle Flying J KFC Chrysler Food Services of America Kohl’s Kraft Foods Philip Morris Inc. [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
(Inventive Step) Copyrighting a prior public disclosure: In re Lister (IP Directions) (IP Osgoode) A closer look at requests to stay section 337 investigations pending re-examination at the USPTO (ITC 337 Law Blog) Patent prosecution tips: drafting preambles (Patently-O) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: When are subsidiaries covered in a license agreement? [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
: Imation v Koninklijke Philips Electronics (Patently-O) (IP Spotlight) District Court N D Illinois: Court not required to review products during claim construction: SP Techs. [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
: Imation v Koninklijke Philips Electronics (Patently-O) (IP Spotlight) District Court N D Illinois: Court not required to review products during claim construction: SP Techs. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 7:20 am
(IP Watchdog) Legal studies program suspended (just_n_examiner) Books as prior art (just_n_examiner) Northern District of Illinois continues as top IP court – Administrative Office of the US Courts 2008 Annual Report (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) Re-exam delays cause trouble for patent owners (Law360) Recovering pate [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 7:00 am
“If we’re afraid to hit terrorists because somebody’s going to yell ‘assassination,’” Casey told the Senate Oversight Committee, “it’ll never stop. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:06 am
HappinessBF 531 T45 2010 DVDThis emotional life : [videorecording] in search of ourselves...and happiness / a co-production of the NOVA/WGBH Science Unit and Vulcan Productions, Inc. ; a film by Kunhardt McGee Productions. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 9:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global week in Review at [feeds.feedburner.com]Highlights this week included: European Commission launches consultation on ‘Content Online in the Single Market': (IPKat), (Out-Law), (IPR Helpdesk), UK government launches consultation on copyright exceptions: (IPKat), (Michael Geist), (IMPACT), (Patry Copyright Blog), (Out-Law), (Ars Technica), (IP Law360), Cordis Corporation - US Court of Appeals… [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 9:07 am
(RelatIP) United Kingdom Tweaks to the UK patent system (IPKat) UK IPO announces 100th Patent Office Opinion issued since s74A – or is it 98? [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 3:00 am
Supreme Court case, TSC Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 8:20 am
BP America Production Co., et al. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 8:00 am
On June 15, 2015, Mroczko filed suit against Pepper, Perez, Blue Cross and Interface America Inc. for injuries she sustained 34 months prior. [read post]
30 May 2007, 5:52 am
The district court denied class action treatment, concluding that “because Plaintiffs had not performed the conflicts-of-law and choice-of-law analyses required by the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in In re St. [read post]
