Search for: "PRL USA Holdings, Inc. "
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2012, 3:07 am
Petitioner PRL USA Holdings, Inc. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 3:12 am
PRL USA Holdings, Inc., Opposition No. 91170868 (June 7, 2012) [not precedential].Opposer pointed to the judgment entered in its favor when PRL withdrew its application to register RLX alone, but the Board pointed out that claim preclusion does not apply because the marks are not identical. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 3:28 am
PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 12:00 am
PRL USA Holdings, Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the natural zone of expansion doctrine did not permit the United States Polo Association (“USPA”) to expand its offerings into a line of fragrances and affirmed the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting such use. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 2:30 am
July 23, 2013 - 11 AM: In re PRL USA Holdings, Inc., Serial Nos. 85284101 and 85284130 [Section 2(a) deceptiveness refusals of DENIM & SUPPLY RALPH LAUREN for handbags and for belts; blouses; coats; dresses; hats; jackets; pants; scarves; shirts; shorts; skirts; t-shirts; tops [DENIM disclaimed]].July 23, 2013 - 2 PM: Clear Choice Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 12:10 pm
Such an instruction would have confused the jury regarding the applicable legal standard.More detail of PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 11:53 am
See PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 9:32 am
So said the Second Circuit in PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 1:25 pm
If the trademark applicant is challenged and cannot produce documentary evidence to corroborate the verified statement of a bona fide intent to use, this absence of proof will be construed to demonstrate that the trademark applicant lacks a bona fide intention to use the proposed trademark with the goods or services identified in the trademark application (See PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 2:42 am
In re PRL USA Holdings, Inc., Serial No. 77634450 (March 21, 2011) [not precedential].The Examining Attorney contended that the goods "have similar uses" and are marketed in the same trade channels. [read post]
24 May 2012, 2:14 pm
She voted to affirm the decision in a case reported on here, PRL USA Holdings v. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 2:36 am
on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive of the services and the recitation of services is indefinite].October 18, 2011 - 2 PM: In re Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, Serial No. 77484850 [Section 2(e)(2) refusal of PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS for "glass and laminate windshield and windows for vehicles excluding aircraft" on the ground that mark is primarily geographically descriptive].October 19, 2011 - 2 PM: In re Coty US LLC , Serial No. 77631330 [Section 2(d) refusal of TEMPEST for… [read post]
26 Aug 2024, 4:37 am
But when “the existence of damage is certain, and the only uncertainty is as to its amount, the plaintiff will not be denied recovery”; the defendant may not insist upon “theoretical perfection”; and it is “always the breaching party who must shoulder the burden of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages” (Wathne Imports, Ltd. v PRL USA, Inc., 101 AD3d 83 [1st Dept 2012] [quotations omitted]). [read post]
