No grāmatas satura
1.3. rezultāts no 69.
307. lappuse
General Foods Corp. , 37 App . Div . 2d 250 , 323 N.Y.S.2d 578 ( 1971 ) , rev'd 31 N.Y.2d 56 , 286 N.E.2d 257 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 874 ( 1972 ) . Compare Tabor v . Hoffman , 119 N.Y. 30 , 23 N.E. 12 ( 1889 ) , and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
General Foods Corp. , 37 App . Div . 2d 250 , 323 N.Y.S.2d 578 ( 1971 ) , rev'd 31 N.Y.2d 56 , 286 N.E.2d 257 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 874 ( 1972 ) . Compare Tabor v . Hoffman , 119 N.Y. 30 , 23 N.E. 12 ( 1889 ) , and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
368. lappuse
Rona Plastic Corp. , 123 F. Supp . 522 ( S.D.N.Y. 1954 ) ( butter dish design denied patent because not sufficiently novel ) . 40. For example , between 1937 and 1960 the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit invalidated 22 design ...
Rona Plastic Corp. , 123 F. Supp . 522 ( S.D.N.Y. 1954 ) ( butter dish design denied patent because not sufficiently novel ) . 40. For example , between 1937 and 1960 the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit invalidated 22 design ...
383. lappuse
Bicron Corp. , 416 U.S. 470 , 491 ( 1974 ) . 121. 120 U.S.P.Q. at 468. See also Ex parte Caron Corp. , 100 U.S.P.Q. 356 ( Dec. Com . Pat . 1954 ) . 122. See Ex parte Haig & Haig Ltd. , 118 U.S.P.Q. 229 ( Dec. Com . Pat . 1958 ) . 123.
Bicron Corp. , 416 U.S. 470 , 491 ( 1974 ) . 121. 120 U.S.P.Q. at 468. See also Ex parte Caron Corp. , 100 U.S.P.Q. 356 ( Dec. Com . Pat . 1954 ) . 122. See Ex parte Haig & Haig Ltd. , 118 U.S.P.Q. 229 ( Dec. Com . Pat . 1958 ) . 123.
Lietotāju komentāri - Rakstīt atsauksmi
Ierastajās vietās neesam atraduši nevienu atsauksmi.
Saturs
Current Cases | 1 |
Current FTC and other Actions | 17 |
The Regulation of Corporate Image Advertising | 29 |
Autortiesības | |
14 citas sadaļas nav parādītas.
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
accompanying action activity advertising allowances Amendment Appeals applied artist authority broadcasting cable character charged claims Commission Communications competition concerning constitutional consumer copy Corp corporate cost decision Defendant denied determine discussion doctrine effect example exist expression fact fairness fairness doctrine federal freedom function further granted held ideas infringement interest involved issue Judge licensees limited mark material matter means ment newspaper notice Office operators opinion original patent performance person Plaintiff political practices present prohibit promotional protection public interest published question reasonable record registration regulation result rule showing speech standard statements statute style substantial suggested Supp supra note Supreme Court television term tion tort trade trademark trial unfair United violation York