Search for: "Lanham v. Lanham"
Results 221 - 240
of 4,396
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2013, 1:36 pm
Rickard v. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 10:52 am
TocMail, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 8:14 am
The Court set out the three factor test noted in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 9:27 am
Lifeway Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 12:45 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 2:00 am
The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 1:33 am
The case is titled Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 12:51 pm
Think Rubix, LLC v. [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 5:38 am
AHBP LLC v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 6:45 am
Republished by Blog Post PromoterThe situation with attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases” under the Lanham Act is, to put it mildly, not clear. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 8:41 am
The situation with attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases” under the Lanham Act is, to put it mildly, not clear. [read post]
15 Dec 2007, 11:32 am
Photomedex, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2021, 10:06 am
Connolly in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 8:31 am
In a decision on May 26, 2011 involving competing tax services, Jackson Hewitt v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 12:40 pm
§ 1125(c))• Count V - Federal Cybersquatting - ACPA and Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 3:19 am
Morningware, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 9:43 am
” See, Brown Chemical Co. v. [read post]
6 May 2008, 1:46 am
Los Angeles, CA - Nike's patent attorneys filed a patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 9:03 am
The shopping mall operator plaintiff prevailed on every significant issue, and the case failed to satisfy the Lanham Act’s requirement that a case be “exceptional” before fees could be awarded (Simon Property Group, L.P. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 3:08 am
Facebook, Inc. v. [read post]