Search for: "Sally v. USA"
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2017, 1:03 pm
The case was Dickerson v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 1:29 pm
Bishop v. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 4:56 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 7:47 am
The court found that it is inconsistent to give evidence of third-party registrations probative value but find the evidence in no way weakens the opposer’s marks and directed the TTAB to reweigh the likelihood of confusion between the marks (Bad Elf, LLC v. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 3:33 am
The court, in affirming the judgment of a district court in Vermont, relied largely on the plain meaning of the visual arts statute to find that the obscuring of the two murals did not equate to their unauthorized “destruction” or “modification” (Kerson v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 1:29 am
The board’s claim construction and motivation to combine analysis were supported by the record (Shamoon v. [read post]
22 Sep 2023, 5:55 am
Cancellation of the candy maker’s trademark registration was affirmed (PIM Brands Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2023, 7:49 am
The only contentions of error the inventor made were issues of claim construction, which he forfeited by not raising them at the appropriate time during the inter partes review proceeding (Driessen v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 5:42 am
The appellate court also affirmed the lower court’s grant of attorney fees to the defendant Running Buddy, agreeing with the lower court both that this case qualified as an exceptional case under the Lanham Act and that Running Buddy was entitled only to one-fourth of its fee request (Pocket Plus, LLC v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 1:32 am
The court also held that the Chinese company was not entitled to the benefit of the ACPA’s safe harbor provision because it could not have reasonably believed that its registration of PRU.COM was lawful (The Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 6:14 am
Any error in the Board’s claim construction was harmless and substantial evidence, including the claim language and expert testimony, supported the Board’s findings of motivation to combine (Bot M8 LLC v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 7:07 am
” (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 5:32 am
In reviewing the case de novo, the court of appeals found that a reasonable factfinder could determine that there was a likelihood of confusion, contrary to the decision of the district court, and reversed and remanded for a bench trial (FCOA LLC v. [read post]
5 May 2023, 5:41 am
More from our authors: Guide to EU and UK Pharmaceutical Regulatory Law, Eighth Edition by Sally Shorthose€ 265 Genuine Use of Trademarks, Second Edition by Eléonore Gaspar€ 190 [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 6:35 am
Further, VICC failed to establish that its two marks had acquired secondary meaning (VI Carnival Committee Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 8:42 am
Descarga el documento: USA v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 7:51 am
Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 6:37 am
The Associated Press (via the Washington Post), Sally P. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 6:08 am
Wallace, DVM2; Karen Gruszynski, DVM3; Marilyn Bibbs Freeman, PhD4; Colin Campbell, DVM5; Shereen Semple, MS5; Kristin Innes, MPH5; Sally Slavinski, DVM6; Gabriel Palumbo, MPH1; Heather Bair-Brake, DVM1; Lillian Orciari, MS2; Rene E. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:25 am
An English court should express no view about the law of the USA. [read post]
