Search for: "In re: B & J Inc"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,213
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2014, 2:58 am
In re Lipstik, Inc., Serial No. 85663715 (January 22, 2014) [not precedential].As to the overlapping goods in the application and cited registration, the Board presumed that they travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 8:30 am
P.41(b)(5), Rule 41 is silent as to whether a federal court may issue a warrant for the search of property located outside of the United States.In re: Two email accounts stored at Google, Inc., supra. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 9:34 am
Jul. 25, 2011) (Sabraw, J.) [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 6:00 am
Jordan, David J. [read post]
9 May 2007, 4:22 am
Black & Decker, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 6:12 am
In re Flamingo Enterprises, Inc., ___ B.R. ___, (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.) [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
Marsh, J. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 7:08 am
The post Case Review – S3i Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 1:35 am
The issue in In re Broadcom: Broadcom Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, andQualcomm Atheros, Inc. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 12:45 pm
C'est qu'en effet, le droit des brevets confère un monopole limité pour permettre au titulaire de bénéficier de la récompense financière qu'il mérite, promouvant ainsi l'innovation. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 11:40 am
On July 6, 2007, the court in In re Electric Machinery Enterprises, Inc., ___ B.R. ___, 2007 WL 3031445 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla.) [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
Mar. 27, 2019) (Dow, J.). [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 2:35 pm
Postal Service, Docket No. 17-1594, J. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 3:05 am
Things did not go smoothly for Skippy, Inc. in its attempt to take a second bite of the PB&J. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 4:29 am
In re Maugus Manufacturing, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 1100 (TTAB 2021) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cindy B. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 6:28 am
In In re Appraisal of PetSmart, Inc. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 12:46 pm
Due to the InnoLux's behavior, the Court ordered that the 30(b)(6) witness be re-deposed, and that the firm bear the costs of the deposition, including attorney's fees. [read post]
16 Jul 2023, 6:44 pm
“Standing and capacity related dismissals are not on the merits” (Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 208 AD3d 99 [1st Dept 2022]), and are deemed to be “without prejudice” (B and H Florida Notes LLC v Ashkenazi, 182 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2020]). [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 6:51 pm
”) (quoting 6 J. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 3:29 am
Dec. 4, 2007) (Coar, J.). [read post]
