Search for: "State v. Winkelmann"
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm
In SEC v. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
United States Hermès Int’l v. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 5:55 am
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 5:25 am
Following a stay and abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 4:33 am
In, DC Comics v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 7:25 am
The case is [2012] NZHC 2076 - The United States of America v Dotcom & Ors. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 5:18 pm
Richard V. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 8:32 am
” for vehicles, ruling on summary judgment that Winkelmann had failed to establish the requisite bona fide intent to use his mark in the United States. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 8:37 am
Two Pesos v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:56 am
Watson, Winkelmann’s legal counsel, stated “the sense of parody employed by Winkelmann within the context of his South Butt undertakings clearly demonstrate a respectful, if not faltering ‘anti-North Face’ posture designed in all respects to distinguish itself from any and all North Face products. [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 1:09 pm
v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
They filed suit in mid-December alleging a variety of federal and state trademark violations including infringement, dilution by blurring, dilution by tarnishment, and false designation of origin. [read post]
25 Dec 2009, 10:26 am
See Diageo Brands B.V. et al v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 9:08 am
The Fourth Circuit's decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 11:20 am
Co., 52 AD3d 450, 451; Winkelmann v Hockins, 204 AD2d 623, 623-624). [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 10:00 pm
Winkelmann case (here).Text Copyright John L. [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:00 am
: Warner Bros v V G Santosh (Spicy IP) Where do we go? [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:04 am
., Ltd v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 10:00 am
(IPEG) Denmark Revamp of Danish PTO English language site – invitation for help from users (Class 46) Europe ECJ gives Copad ruling on exhaustion and luxury goods; interpretation of Article 8(2) leads to new questions: Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel, as liquidator of Société industrielle lingerie (Class 46) (IPKat) Anti-patent rally; criticism of practice of patenting biological processes - Munich (Intellectual… [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 3:50 am
See Lane Ltd. v. [read post]
