Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 2001 - 2020
of 10,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2022, 10:18 am
United States (Federal Tort Claims Act) Simmons v. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 2:50 pm
See also United States v Power, unpublished memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, issued January 9, 2023 (Case No. 20-po-331-GLS), 2023 WL 131050, and United States v Robertson, unpublished memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, issued January 9, 2023 (Case No. 22-po-867-GLS), 2023 WL 131051, *12 ("[T]he Court… [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 4:07 pm
State v. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 1:08 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com] No. 07-5439 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RALPH BAZE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 8:40 pm
This contribution to a symposium marking the seventy-fifth anniversary of Erie Railroad Company v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
The best way to do this is through the extensive literature on state capacity and development, much of it new since Ackerman’s original efforts, to establish a legally plausible baseline for marking out later informal constitutional changes. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 10:42 am
” A recent case from the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trade name can be “distinct” when it incorporates two generic terms which are not typically linked together. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 4:09 am
The Board had ruled that Petitioner Australian Therapeutic lacked standing because it had agreed not to use or register the mark NAKED for condoms in the United States, and further had agreed that Respondent could use and register the mark, and so Australian did not have a real interest in this proceeding or a reasonable basis for its belief of damage. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 11:17 am
In Steginsky v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 4:45 am
” In response to petitioner’s cancellation request, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment with the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) on April 28, 2014, seeking judgment as a matter of law with regards to petitioner’s claim for mere descriptiveness. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 6:28 am
Kidd v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 9:14 pm
United States, 319F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 7:21 am
For this blog’s Academic round-up, Amanda Frost examines some of the academic commentary on the Fourth Amendment’s applicability to GPS surveillance, an issue the Court will take up in United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2016, 12:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 7:40 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
Last Best Beef, LLC v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 8:41 am
Body: SC19600 - State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 9:30 pm
Dagenhart, United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 6:08 am
Theatrical Stage Employees Union Local No. 2 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada v. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 10:08 am
The United States Shoe Corporation was an appeal from a decision of the Opposition Board which refused registration of THE INVINCIBLES for use in association with "eyeglass lenses" and related wares on the basis that it was confusing with the opponent's mark, INVISIBLES for "ophthalmic (sic) lenses". [read post]
