Search for: "Rose v. Rose"
Results 2041 - 2060
of 3,918
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jun 2021, 12:25 pm
The actual or potential use of registered marks in another form is irrelevant when comparing the signs [para. 25] (emphasis added).This is consistent with paragraph 34 of Mitrakos v EUIPO – Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS), which refers to paragraph 38 of Pico Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE). [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 2:03 pm
Source Perrier v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 3:57 am
Chandrakumar v. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 12:04 pm
Paxton and Moody v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 4:09 am
Constitution Daily reports on Hernandez v. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 2:31 am
Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Paula-Rose Stark of counsel), for respondent. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 9:19 am
He sensed the call of the times – and he rose to the call. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 5:00 am
FraternitiesLast year also gave rise to a number of decisions in cases involving personal injuries at fraternities.In Rose v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 10:00 am
The Supreme Court in Campbell v. [read post]
2 Sep 2019, 8:00 am
Between 2000 and 2009, the incidents of C. diff in hospitals rose from 139,000 to 336,000 and are now estimated to cost the U.S. $1 billion a year. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 2:02 pm
As I stated above, I'm not speaking to the questions as to whether defendant's actions rose to commercial use, and whether it had good parody or other defenses. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 10:46 pm
This article was written by Robin Vers, Associate, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 2:23 pm
Senate President Thomas V. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 7:09 am
In Reece v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 1:13 pm
Recently in Caplan v Atas,[2] Justice Corbett decided that the time had come to recognize the tort of online harassment. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 9:08 am
Since this was not the case in P.J.G. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 4:46 am
This has now been given, last Friday, by Mr Justice Floyd (Chancery Division, England and Wales) in Land Securities plc, Capital Shopping Centres plc and Hammerson plc v Registrar of Trade Marks [2008] EWHC 1744 (Pat).This was a decision in respect of three joined cases, which were heard together in order to determine the question of whether the operator of a shopping centre could register a trade mark for the services it might provide (White Rose, Victoria Centre and Eden Quarter… [read post]
19 May 2014, 10:52 am
The unpublished nature of the work undermines that in some measure (see, e.g., Harper & Row v. [read post]
14 Sep 2012, 12:21 pm
Parish v. [read post]
13 Oct 2020, 5:01 am
Colo.) a week ago in Banks v. [read post]
