Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 10,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2018, 11:30 am
AFSCME (argued February 26, 2018): This is a case filed by Mark Janus, an Illinois child-support specialist. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 8:00 am
UPDATED: June 21, 2010 at 11:55 am Straight from the Broken Record department, the United States Supreme Court has again not issued a decision in Bilski v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 5:43 am
He then cited to some of the landmark cases involving homosexuality such as Bowers v Hardwick [the 1986 case that upheld Georgia's criminalization of certain homosexual acts]; Lawrence v Texas [the 2003 decision overruling Bowers]; and of course, United States v Windsor [striking down as unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act which defined a marriage as solely between one man and one woman in the federal benefits context].Justice… [read post]
16 Aug 2019, 3:36 pm
A trademark owner can save time, expense, and effort by adopting an inherently distinctive mark and ensuring it is registered on the Principal Register with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 3:53 am
The Court was also “troubled” that defendants were offering to sell contact lenses into the United States using Mon Ros’ AZURE and AMARILLO marks. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 1:33 pm
In Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 1:33 pm
In Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 9:58 am
” United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 9:17 am
In the case of Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 11:19 am
In United States Patent And Trademark Office, Et Al., v. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 11:19 am
In United States Patent And Trademark Office, Et Al., v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 1:26 pm
“Marriage Equality,” as the New York statute is entitled, has been a hard fought battle.New York’s highest court held that there was no state constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Hernandez v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 2:51 am
Said the Court, the high rating position of links to the CTM proprietor’s website could be justified in the light of the earlier mark’s well-known character in the United States; they did not show that EU consumers were familiar with the earlier mark, given that no evidence was provided of its market share, of how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing its use was, of the investment in its promotion and of how significant a… [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 3:59 am
Wirecard AG v. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 3:58 am
” Daimler AG v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:56 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 5:56 am
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in Maples v. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 2:04 pm
The Court ruled, instead, that “all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States. [read post]
26 Jan 2013, 4:08 pm
Some of the background can be found in an article entitled “Right of Reply: A Comparative Approach” [pdf] by Andras Koltay, who also discusses the position in the United States and Canada. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 3:43 am
Hov IP II, Inc. v. [read post]
