Search for: "Mark Case"
Results 2241 - 2260
of 70,938
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2018, 9:54 pm
., March 28, 2018) (affirming dismissal of Johnson's complaint based on Colorado Supreme Court decision regarding state property interest in salary and benefits)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 9:46 pm
., October 17, 2017) (vacating award for Dietz on the merits because Dietz did not reasonably believe Cypress engaged in offenses enumerated in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 9:31 pm
., August 2, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits: substantial weight supported ALJ decision)*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 7:07 pm
., October 5, 2017) (setting aside lower decision in support of termination: termination was disproportionate to the offense and exceeded the bounds of reasonableness and rationality)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
29 Sep 2018, 8:03 pm
., September 5, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Romo was able to perform unskilled work and was thus not disabled) *Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
10 May 2018, 6:04 pm
., April 25, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of ARUP on Hankishiyev's retaliation claim, and dismissing his age discrimination claim) *Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 4:00 pm
., May 29, 2018) (reversing in part denial of disability benefits for a proper evaluation: the ALJ failed to accurately describe Carr’smental limitations in hypothetical questions)*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 4:20 pm
Argument analysis: Justices appear likely to endorse broader reading of FOIA exemption for “confidential” commercial informationBy Mark Fenster, SCOTUSblog, Apr. 23, 2019An observer might be excused if she was confused by Monday’s oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 8:54 pm
., September 22, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Anthem because Suarez's briefs lacked substantive argument, citations to the record, or legal authority)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 7:53 am
The case considers the ability of a trademark user to “tack” the priority of an early mark onto the priority of a later mark. [read post]
7 May 2021, 4:30 am
It all starts with a mark doctor* and his inability to keep his mouth shut to a CI. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 4:49 pm
Another update: And just in case you still can’t get enough of Cuban, be sure to check out the SECLaw blog which has some interesting legal perspectives on the case. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 8:38 am
Further, it was necessary on a case-by-case assessment to ascertain whether the sign may be descriptive or should be refused on any other grounds. [read post]
4 Mar 2018, 4:31 am
With regard to the online use of signs identical to Barilla’s trade marks, the Court recalled relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – including the decisions in Google France, Interflora, L’Oréal, and Portakabin– and engaged in a discussion of the functions of a trade mark.It concluded that in the present case the online use of signs corresponding to Barilla’s trade marks was aimed at… [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 5:02 pm
In his post about a panel discussion in Washington last night, Tony Mauro breaks the news -- well, news to me -- that a University of Nebraska historian, Mark Scherer, has written a new book on one of the most important Supreme Court cases for legal reporters. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 5:58 am
In this case comment, Stephen McNaught, Mark McMurray, Josh Risso-Gill and Gael Hardie, who all work within the planning team at CMS, comment on the decision recently handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2020] UKSC 20, which concerned “listed buildings”. [read post]
5 Jun 2022, 10:43 am
Having considered each of the elements of the tests for infringement under Article 9(2) of the EUTM Regulation, the court held that Swatch had established trade mark infringement in either the digital watch face, the app name, or in some cases both the face and the app name. [read post]
12 May 2007, 10:05 am
Only the purple in these marks was at issue in the case. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 11:43 pm
This is especially important in a case, such as this one, where the alleged mark is so broadly and even vaguely defined. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 9:34 pm
The OHIM view gives a registration protection for items not described in its list of goods/services, invisible unless you know the secret code and with nothing to warn the businessman or other non-specialist reader that that is the case". [read post]
