Search for: "Seabrook v. Seabrook"
Results 21 - 40
of 62
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2010, 1:09 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Olden v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2010] EWCA Civ 143 (26 February 2010) Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 158 (26 February 2010) LG, R (on the application of) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 142 (26 February 2010) Mann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 141 (26 February 2010)… [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 11:15 am
“[I]t may be useful to supplement that test with the test first introduced in Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 12:54 pm
" Seabrook v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 8:16 am
In PolyOne Corp. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 7:04 am
The four-part test for determining inherent distinctiveness of trade dress was set forth in Seabrook v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 9:03 am
The court of appeals used the four part test set out in Seabrook Foods v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 2:07 am
., Serial No. 77356614 (October 23, 2009) [not precedential].The test to be applied is set forth in Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 2:35 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCivil Rights
Amended Equal Rights, Title VI Claims in Action Over Townhomes Dismissed for Pleading Errors
Seabrook v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 6:43 am
Corp. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 7:02 am
Nola Spice Designs, LLC v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 8:24 am
That distinction is legally important because of the Supreme Court ruling in Wal-Mart v. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 4:04 am
That distinction is legally important because of the Supreme Court ruling in Wal-Mart v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 1:04 pm
Dionne,Véronique Iezzoni, Simon Gagné, Sylvain Poirier, Philippe Tremblay, Patrick A. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 4:14 am
"Inherent Distinctiveness: To assess the inherent distinctiveness of the pattern, the Board followed Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 3:24 am
., 90 USPQ2d 1535, 1539-40 (TTAB 2009), aff’d, 96 USPQ2d 1681 The Board applied the ever-popular test of Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 6:51 am
Payne v. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 4:49 am
" Forney Indus., 2020 USPQ2d 10310, at *6 (citing Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 5:15 am
" It first agreed with the Examining Attorney that Banana's design is not inherently distinctive under the test [for product packaging] set forth in Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 11:35 pm
., Serial No. 78546549 (July 2, 2009) [not precedential].The Board applied the "time-tested" analysis of Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:37 am
Compare LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
