Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 181 - 200
of 5,923
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2013, 7:57 am
(c) &nbs [read post]
7 May 2013, 5:01 pm
However, as they were not allocated – in extreme cases (only) 0 marks were awarded –, the candidates were unequally treated, which violated Article 16 REQE: better candidates having a positive overall number of marks lose marks if there were (further) mistakes, whereas worse candidates who already had 0 marks and who made the very same mistake would not lose any marks. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 9:07 am
The defendant was deemed to ride on the coat-tails of the BOSS mark and to benefit from its reputation in the marketing of its goods. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 6:33 am
Turning to the marks, the Board found them to be similar in sound and appearance, since they are single terms that begin with "ash" followed by a hard "c. [read post]
20 Jan 2023, 7:46 am
The Black Friday trade mark A good example is the German trade mark ‘Black Friday’. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 3:45 am
It pointed to five third-party registrations, but the Board agreed with Examining Attorney Andrew C. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 5:00 am
Well here's a seldom-used shortcut to victory: a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c). [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm
Nor does the PTO inquire into whether the famous person also sells the goods or services in question, as it does with private individuals under Section 1052(c). [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 1:09 am
On 17 September the CJEU handed down a long-awaited judgment on a matter that thrilled sports fans and the IP community (C-449/18P, C-474/18P, available in French and Spanish). [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 6:47 am
While interesting questions remain about the relationship between black and white and colour trade marks, like how to apply this new interpretation retroactively, it is finally good to see another small piece added to the EU trade mark harmonisation puzzle. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 5:45 am
Only when the alleged infringed could show that there existed a real risk that national markets are partitioned if it must prove that the goods were placed on the market in the EEA by the trade mark owner or with its consent does the burden shift back to the trade mark owner (with reference to C-244/00 - van Doren + Q). [read post]
16 Nov 2008, 11:36 am
Section 3(1)(c) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 (based on Art 7 (1)(c) of the CTMR) provides that a trade mark cannot be registered if it is exclusively descriptive of the character or qualities of goods, this goes hand in hand with Section 3(1)(b) which refers to distinctiveness and has become a rather large sticking point for academics and practitioners alike. [read post]
28 Sep 2019, 12:00 am
This, in a nutshell, is the subject of the referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Cooper, C-622/18. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 12:30 pm
The full decision can be found here: file:///C:/Users/KS18570/Downloads/EXA_10.pdf. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 12:30 pm
The full decision can be found here: file:///C:/Users/KS18570/Downloads/EXA_10.pdf. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 10:06 pm
This is a rather vague concept but seems to be akin to the requirement of ‘significant departure from the standard and customs in the relevant sector’ applied to three-dimensional trade marks representing (parts of) the goods (e.g. case C-417/16 P at para. 35). [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 9:12 am
The case law on the protection of geographical names as trade marks started with the CJEU’s Windsurfing Chiemsee judgment (cases C-108/97 and C-109/97). [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 12:47 am
The problem in the present case is that the [CJEU] has said that the answer is not A, but C. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 1:03 pm
US footwear manufacturer Skechers opposed on absolute grounds, objecting that the marks were devoid of any distinctive character under the Trade Marks Act 1994 s 3(1)(b) and that they were purely descriptive contrary to s3(1)(c) of the same Act. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 1:58 am
My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, which I think is better characterized as the Olympic Corporate Sponsor Protection Act. [read post]
