Search for: "Valentino v. Valentino"
Results 1 - 20
of 75
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2022, 1:00 pm
The post VALENTINO MOFOR v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 5:39 am
[Jack Goldsmith and I will have an article out about the Dormant Commerce Clause, geolocation, and state regulations of Internet transactions in the Texas Law Review early next year, and I'm serializing it here. [read post]
15 May 2022, 5:00 pm
The decision in Amherst II UE LLC v. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 1:21 pm
While the cases of Ammlung and Archibald have provided mixed signals from the appellate courts on this issue, in its most recent pronouncement, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in the personal injury case of Valentino v. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 5:00 am
See Valentino v. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 6:48 am
Civil litigation — Dismissal — Amended complaint In 2019, Valentino Mofor, appellant, filed a complaint against Lyft, Inc., appellee, in the District Court of Baltimore County, raising claims of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair and deceptive trade practices, constructive fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 7:42 am
Roberson v. [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 5:00 pm
[2] Valentino U.S.A., Inc. v. 693 Fifth Owner LLC, 2020 WL 3485810, at *4 (N.Y. [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 6:25 am
Murphy, Austrian Supreme Court revisits football screening in pubs | Dutch State not liable for incorrect interpretation of private copying exception, says Hague Court of Appeal | West African Cotton Company Limited v Hozelock Exel: How may a petitioner establish lack of novelty of a registered design in Nigeria? [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 7:08 am
The case at issue was an opposition to an application of a mark combining the sign “V” with words “Valentino Rudi” by the Italian high end fashion company Valentino. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 1:18 am
A recent opposition case, Valentino S.p.A. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 3:04 am
McGrath , Serial No. 87509598 [Section 2(d) refusal to register AMPLIFIED YOGA for "Yoga instruction, namely, yoga classes, workshops, retreats, and teacher training classes," in view of the registered mark AMPLIFIED PILATES CENTER for "Pilates instruction"].December 5, 2019 - 11 AM: Satco Products, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 10:14 am
Tokyo Gwinnett, LLC v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 3:08 am
Cheshire Bridge Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 4:02 am
Cheshire Bridge Holdings, LLC v City of Atlanta, 2019 WL 2406502 (11th Cir CA 6/7/2019) [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 12:00 am
Tort Talkers may recall the case of Valentino v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 1:45 pm
For health care providers concerned about the effect the Covenant Medical Center v. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 5:20 pm
Senate President Thomas V. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 3:48 am
The court or tribunal will have to determine what the defendant knew (the subjective element) and to determine whether his actions to register the mark with such knowledge would be regarded as being in bad faith by persons adopting proper standards (the objective element) (Valentino Globe v Pacific Rim Industries [2010] 2 SLR 1203, Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd [2009] 2 SLR (R) 814). [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 12:10 pm
In Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. [read post]
