Search for: "Marks v. State" Results 2181 - 2200 of 19,799
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2017, 8:31 pm by Sme
National Science Foundation (10th Cir., April 26, 2017) (denying Craine's petition for review:  his disclosures, as a former employee of Kansas State University, did not fall within the whistleblower protections of 41 U.S.C. ss. 4712)*Jackson v. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 5:01 pm by Sme
 Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc. (10th Cir., November 7, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Rael's state law harassment and emotional distress claims as preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act)Discrimination/Retaliation*Mitchell v. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 3:49 am
” It contended that CIELA thus “provoke[s] consumers to associate the registered mark with ‘cielo’ and the beauty and purety [sic] of [Montana] the Big Sky State,” where Registrant is located. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
For example, under the doctrine set forth in the 1979 case of United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2020, 3:47 am by Eleonora Rosati
 Readers might for instance recall the recent judgment in Sekmadienis Ltd v Lithuania [Katpost here], in which the ECtHR considered that a prohibition to use in advertising the image of Jesus and Mary on grounds of public morals should be regarded as an undue compression of the applicants' own freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 1:59 am by Afro Leo
The ultimate test however is, as stated by the court in Cowbell, whether, on comparison of the two marks, there is a likelihood of confusion”. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 5:33 am by Sheldon Toplitt
Image via CrunchBaseTrial is slated for April 22 in Timelines, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
17 May 2014, 3:05 am by SHG
Board of Education, on the constitutionality of racial segregation in state school systems; and a memorandum on a federal case, Bolling v. [read post]