Search for: "Marks v. Cross"
Results 201 - 220
of 2,840
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2010, 7:00 am
Horst v. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 12:40 am
King Ranch IP, LLC v. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 3:40 am
Arcor S.A.I.C. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 3:58 pm
Ziebarth v. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 3:58 pm
Ziebarth v. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 1:13 am
The landmark judgment in the Prosecutor v. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 10:00 pm
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 10:00 am
Next, trial counsel Mark Miller examined Olson-Gault on behalf of the prosecution. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 4:36 pm
On February 27, the Eastern District of California denied cross-motions for summary judgment on Nike’s dilution claim in Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 3:02 am
Skincode AG v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 6:15 am
The Board granted the petition of adidas AG for cancellation of two registrations owned by the Christian Faith Fellowship Church for the mark ADD A ZERO, in standard character and design form, for "clothing, namely shirts and caps," finding that the Church had not used the marks in commerce prior to the filing date of the underlying applications. adidas AG v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:27 pm
Mark makes an immensely important point in his post on the latest in NML v. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am
The Court began by noting that, in order to assess whether the distinctive character of the Mark had been altered, it needed to carry out an assessment of the distinctive and dominant character of the added elements, based of the intrinsic qualities of each of those elements, as well as of the relative position of the various elements within the arrangement of the mark (Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO – Plásticos Hidrosolubles (green cycles), T‑78/19).It… [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 8:53 am
By Mark S. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 5:03 am
The referring court rejected Hauck's appeal, but considered that the cross-appeal on the issue of registrability of the trade mark called for the interpretation of Article 3(1)(e) of the directive which, to date, has not been covered by the CJEU's case-law. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 3:33 am
WeaponX Performance Products Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 10:46 am
Following an appeal, a cross-appeal and a good deal of argument, the High Court decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 4:25 pm
Now, the latest developments: The parties cross-moved for the verdict to be set aside and a new trial held. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 9:33 pm
In Matsunoki Group, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 3:42 am
Inc. v. [read post]
