Search for: "Schloss v. Schloss"
Results 1 - 20
of 42
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2014, 1:58 am
In Case T‑149/06 Castellani v OHIM – Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI) [noted by the IPKat here], when the General Court held, in assessing the existence of a likelihood of confusion, the German consumer of wine was accustomed to seeing a large number of trade marks for wine the names of which began with ‘Schloss’, ‘castello’, ‘château’, ‘castel’ or ‘castle’. [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
., Appellant, v. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 12:27 pm
Shloss v. [read post]
12 Sep 2007, 9:03 am
His firm, Weisman Young Schloss and Ruemenapp, P.C. [read post]
12 Sep 2007, 9:03 am
His firm, Weisman Young Schloss and Ruemenapp, P.C. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 6:00 am
[Penn Central, Loretto v. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 5:04 am
Here is the body of the decision: “Plaintiff cannot show that, but for defendants’ negligence, she would have obtained a verdict after trial that exceeded the $1.3 million settlement amount defendants negotiated (see Gallet, Dreyer & Berkey, LLP v Basile, 141 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2016]; see also Schloss v Steinberg, 100 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2012]). [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 3:45 am
VK Südbayern, Beschl. v. 31. [read post]
9 Nov 2019, 4:40 am
BGH, Urt. v. 17. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 10:14 am
Schloss. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 10:14 am
Schloss. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 9:32 am
Schloss. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 9:32 am
Schloss. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 5:44 pm
The trial in Technology Integration v. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 7:43 am
Nach den Schlussanträgen des Generalanwalts am Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) sollen Unternehmen künftig verpflichtet sein, ein System zur Erfassung der täglichen Arbeitszeit ihrer Mitarbeiter einzuführen (Schlussanträge v. 31.01.2019, Az. [read post]
14 Jun 2020, 3:41 am
V. m. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 3:19 am
VK Sachsen-Anhalt, Beschl. v. 21. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 4:51 am
Santorelli and Schloss. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 6:22 am
VG Berlin, Urt. v. 25. [read post]
29 Feb 2020, 2:32 am
EuGH,, Urt. v. 30. [read post]
