article thumbnail

The 2007 Weblog Awards

Likelihood of Confusion

The post The 2007 Weblog Awards appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION is a “finalist” in the Law Blogs category! It says we get “badges.” ” I didn’t think I needed no stinkin’ badge, but if I think.

article thumbnail

Best of 2007: Litigation guy

Likelihood of Confusion

The post Best of 2007: Litigation guy appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™. Seems we just get started and before you know it, comes the time we have to say, "So long."

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Best of 2007: Second Circuit’s “narrowness” embarrasses McCarthy

Likelihood of Confusion

Posted on July 25, 2007. The post Best of 2007: Second Circuit’s “narrowness” embarrasses McCarthy appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™. Michael Atkins reports that the colossus of American trademark law, J.T. McCarthy, is embarrassed by the narrow thinking of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

article thumbnail

Supreme People’s Court of China issues first comprehensively revised judicial interpretation of anti-unfair competition law since 2007

The IPKat

There was no JI on the AUCL until 2007. JI 2020) was a minor one with only one change to the JI 2007, i.e., replacing one of the legislation’s grounds from the General Principles of the Civil Law to the Civil Code of China (See the IPKat post on the Civil Code of China here ). The subsequent JI (i.e.

Law 95
article thumbnail

Design Patent Obviousness Inquiry Is Up for Review at the CAFC

JD Supra Law

GM Global Technology to rule on the issue of whether the current test for determining obviousness of design patents, i.e., the Rosen/Durling Standard, is proper in view of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. 398 (2007), which significantly broadened the obviousness inquiry for utility. Teleflex, 550 U.S.

article thumbnail

Breaking Down the USPTO’s Not-So-Obvious Obviousness Guidelines

JD Supra Law

550 US 398 (2007). The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its guidance for patent examiners and applicants in determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103, based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex Inc.,

article thumbnail

Cranial Technologies Sues Ottobock for Infringement of Cranial Remodeling Patents

JD Supra Law

7,242,798, titled “Automatic Selection of Cranial Remodeling Device Configuration,” which issued in 2007; and U.S. 7,227,979, titled “Automatic Selection of Cranial Remodeling Device Trim Lines,” which issued in 2007. The lawsuit alleges that Ottobock’s MyCRO Band and iFab system infringe U.S. Below is an example. By: Knobbe Martens