2018-1077 01-14-2019 IN RE: SINY CORP., Appellant Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Christina J. Hieber, Mary Beth Walker. Prost, Chief Judge. Daniel Kattman, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for appellant. Also represented by Heidi R. Thole. Thomas W. Krause

Civ. A. No. 92-0715-A. July 31, 1992 Lawrence Jay Gotts, Kirkland Ellis, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Richard Cullen, U.S. Atty., E.D.Va., Richmond, Va., Richard Parker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION CLAUDE HILTON, Chief Judge This matter came before the court on July 16, 1992 on cross motions for summary judgment. Both parties agree that no material facts are in dispute and the court should decide this case on the summary judgment motions. The plaintiff, Lands'

Bankruptcy No. 89-05155. Adv. No. 89-7042. January 19, 1990. John S. Steinberger, Kenmare, N.D., for defendant, debtor. Parrell D. Grossman, Minot, N.D., for plaintiff. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM A. HILL, Bankruptcy Judge. This adversary proceeding was commenced by Complaint filed June 7, 1989, by which the plaintiff, Julie Streich, seeks a determination that divorce decree provisions by which the defendant/Debtor, Scott Osterberg, would remain responsible for certain marital obligations are in

Patent Appeal No. 7281. February 11, 1965. Burgess, Dinklage Sprung, New York City (Arnold Sprung, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Robert C. Williams, D.D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Powermatics appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarding priority to Globe, senior party, in a trademark interference between Globe's Registration No. 704,179 for "PANELUME"

(a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 , a statement of use under § 2.88 , an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse under § 2.160 , or an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under § 7.36 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional

(a) An application for a trademark or service mark must include one or more of the following five filing bases: (1)Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are: (i) The applicant's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; (ii) The date