Search for: "United States v. Bayer" Results 1 - 20 of 229
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Oct 2014, 8:08 pm by FDABlog HPM
Thomas – Around this time last month, we wrote about the government’s motion for an order to show cause in United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 7:19 pm by FDABlog HPM
District Court for the District of New Jersey unsealed its opinion in United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 5:15 am by Cheryl Beise
Dow AgroSciences LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2015-1854, 17 March 2017 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
The Court stated the question thus: Does the Lanham Act allow the owner of a foreign mark that is not registered in the United States and further has never used the mark in United States commerce assert priority rights over the mark that is registered in the United States by another party and used in United States commerce? [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 3:06 am
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reversed the TTAB's ruling in Bayer Consumer Care AG v. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 6:01 pm by Jay W. Belle Isle
The “[p]laintiffs in all of the actions currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (except for Williams et al v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 3:46 pm by Steven G. Pearl
Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. ---, 131 S.Ct. 2368, 2011 WL 768649 (6/16/11) (blogged here) the Supreme Court of the United States held that a District Court's denial of a Rule 23 class certification motion does not prevent separate plaintiffs from seeking certification in a separate state court action. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:35 pm
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Bayer’s Section 43(a) false association and false advertising claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) and entered judgment on the pleadings as to Bayer’s Section 14(3) claim, ruling that the Lanham Act does not allow an owner of a foreign mark not registered in the United States, who does not use the mark in the United States [Bayer], to assert priority rights over a mark that… [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 6:27 am by Amy Howe
Petitioners next invoke what they describe as “the general rule of nonparty preclusion . . . grounded in the United States Constitution” and its due process requirements.  [read post]