Search for: "John Doe Inc 1-2"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,453
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2023, 9:40 am
”Claimant #1, filing as John Doe, petitioned the D.C. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:57 pm
If there is a separate brief for Appellee "John Does 2-10", the ILB has not yet received a copy; other than that, the list should now be complete. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 4:01 am
The Board affirmed this Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register WARTSEAL, finding the term merely descriptive of "Wart removing preparations. [read post]
16 May 2018, 7:16 am
Kingdom Trust Company; PENSCO Trust Company; John Does 1-25., 2017-1336. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 8:17 pm
WISAM 1, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
Today’s case of the day, Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
It does not come within any of the prongs of Rule 45(b)(2). [read post]
12 May 2012, 10:48 am
Does 1-37, CV 11-3995 (E.D.N.Y.) [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 8:10 am
October 2, 2018 - 1 PM: VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 3:53 pm
John Does 1-5, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Civil Action File No. 1:17-cv-03843-CAP. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 3:53 pm
John Does 1-5, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Civil Action File No. 1:17-cv-03843-CAP. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 4:28 am
The Board reversed an "ornamental" refusal to register the design mark shown below for vehicle tires, finding that the PTO Examining Attorney had failed to make a prima facie case that the mark is merely ornamental and does not function as a trademark (Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act). [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 3:25 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 3:32 pm
VARIOUS JOHN DOES et al Plaintiff: CINDER BLOCK, INC. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 6:34 pm
Id. at *2. [read post]
15 May 2007, 8:16 pm
" If indeed Applicant's goods are not welded on, then, according to Judge Bucher, "the mark should be refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act as being deceptively misdescriptive. [read post]
18 May 2007, 4:51 am
"The Board therefore affirmed the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 1:35 am
It does not reduce his loss. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 5:58 am
-- https://imgflip.com/i/kqmu6Text Copyright Kira-Khanh McCarthy and John L. [read post]
