Search for: "TM Claims Service, Inc."
Results 141 - 160
of 268
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2015, 6:26 am
Marketquest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 11:29 am
Big Truck Rehab Center Inc., No. 112964 (Ct. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 7:08 am
Eagle Express Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02811 (D.N.J. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 4:21 pm
By Eric Goldman Network Automation, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 5:10 am
The customer now, though perhaps for other reasons, claims that he wants the TM for itself, and the vendor says the TM doesn't add any value. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 3:29 pm
‘It’s Idenix Pharmaceutical, Inc v Gilead Sciences, Inc & Others [2014] EWHC 3916 (Pat) (01 December 2014)’, Darren might answer. [read post]
28 May 2021, 3:39 am
Third, there is no claim of trademark rights through the designation “TM. [read post]
12 Jan 2023, 9:08 am
Ansley Golf Club Inc., No. 1:22-cv-03048 (N.D. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 10:57 am
The jury could have reasonably concluded that Watermark intended to use the term J-Mate to fairly describe or compare its own products and services, rather than to confuse customers. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 12:23 pm
Tickets.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:12 am
Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00057 (N.D. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 7:03 pm
Virtual City Vision, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1467183 (4th Cir.) [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 11:55 am
Grubhub, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-05128 (N.D. [read post]
16 Aug 2021, 8:19 am
View this document on Scribd La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 11:06 am
Perdue Farms Inc., No. 5:22-cv-00268 (M.D. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 5:43 am
But it’s unclear if they’ve tried to trademark individual words for goods or services. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 10:34 am
Supreme Court issued its decision in New Prime Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 5:46 am
Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10837, at *1 (Fed. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 3:02 pm
Most people may not know that this company is Wham-O, Inc. of Emeryville, California. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:00 am
The TM part of this might need revisiting in light of Abitron; the court earlier held that use of a mark in the US wasn’t required to bring Lanham Act claims, but subsequently Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. v. [read post]
